Let the AK go for an AR?
- Thread starter FNP45
- Start date
- Status
FlyinBryan
Member
yes, you're welcome. we should thank ugaarguy. it was his find.
it is very good i must say again.
JustinJ
Member
It did until SOCOM had to pay for it from their own budget. It too was going to be used by special forces. Russian special forces is actually organized quite differently from those of the US and i have no doubt the 47 and 74 are still used regularly. In fact, the AN94 is probably not in service at all:
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+R...has+wanted+a+variety+of+things...-a0264932762
If you don't like inflammatory maybe don't accuse others of using "fuzzy liberal thinking". If you want informed opinions there are plenty in favor of the AK as well but i somehow doubt an objective examination would be given.
Last edited:
FIVETWOSEVEN
Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2009
- Messages
- 5,146
From your link Justin, it didn't offer enough advantages to field the more expensive rifle.
Also from your link. You just proved what I said.
ugaarguy
Member
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2006
- Messages
- 13,828
I primarily posted the link to dispute those with no credentials asserting that the AK is the undisputed king of assault rifles. However, I think it relates to the OP in at least three ways:
First, the OP is asking about 3 gun, which is basically a combat simulation shooting sport, and someone (Chindo18Z) whom we can assume by his MOS has a boatload of combat experience, and has used both rifles extensively, has related why he's found the AR-15/M16/M4 superior to the AK family
Second, the OP stated:
Again, we have an MOS 18Z who has could have carried an AK if he was concerned with AR-15/M16/M4 reliability, but didn't. He states he only trained heavily with AK type weapons for a very specific mission where resupply, not reliability, was the deciding factor.
The OP also stated:
I think part of Chindo18Z's post I linked, quoted below, applies here. Substitute "baby-needs-new-shoes" for "momma-says-we're-fixing-up-this-part-of-the-house", and the comparison becomes pretty valid.
Anyway, all that aside, I'm glad you enjoyed the info. And thanks to Chindo18Z for sharing his experience with us.
Chris Rhines
Member
I wish I had seen this thread earlier.
To the OP - I've been shooting 3-gun at the national level for six years. The vast majority of the winning shooters in every division use an AR-pattern rifle. I've never seen an AK-pattern shooter place well (inside the top 20) in a major 3-gun match.
Nothing says you can't use a Klatch in a 3-gun match, if you're really in love with the platform. But the AR is a better tool for that particular job. Better accuracy in general, better control layout, better scope mounting options, better handling when shooting from awkward or unconventional positions.
-C
To the OP - I've been shooting 3-gun at the national level for six years. The vast majority of the winning shooters in every division use an AR-pattern rifle. I've never seen an AK-pattern shooter place well (inside the top 20) in a major 3-gun match.
Nothing says you can't use a Klatch in a 3-gun match, if you're really in love with the platform. But the AR is a better tool for that particular job. Better accuracy in general, better control layout, better scope mounting options, better handling when shooting from awkward or unconventional positions.
-C
FlyinBryan
Member
ugaarguy, i do not believe he was talking about your link.
if im not mistaken he was referring to the link in post #78, directly above his post that you quoted in #81
if im not mistaken he was referring to the link in post #78, directly above his post that you quoted in #81
Hocka Louis
Member
- Joined
- May 22, 2011
- Messages
- 313
Sell a gun? Oh the horror.You will be better off, net net, keeping the AK and eventually buying the AR. You'll lose 1/3rd the AK value you paid. The AR is a much better gun in most regards but you can be patient...
WardenWolf
member
An AK can be made into virtually anything you want it to be, save for changing calibers. Stocks, grips, foregrips, and other accessories interchange. There's a wealth of aftermarket accessories available for them. They can be as basic or tactical as you like. If you have one with a side rail, you have a good optics solution that rivals the AR. Just add a BP-02 mount and any Weaver / Picatinny accessory.
To people who complain about the magazine release, you probably have not seen the speed mag changes some people do, where they use the new magazine to rake the release lever and old mag out of the slot then rock it home. It's honestly just as fast as, if not faster than, an AR mag change.
Personally, I'm an AK guy. I find they handle well when set up correctly, are easily accessorized, and are rugged and versatile. I've seen my converted Saiga .223 outshoot an AR that cost twice as much, and have far fewer problems. I know my gun inside and out, and trust it with my life. A lot of people limit themselves to viewing the AK as a rough, wooden-stocked, inaccurate relic. They don't see the potential these guns really have when you take the time and effort to set them up so they're right for you. Give the AK a chance. You won't regret it.
To people who complain about the magazine release, you probably have not seen the speed mag changes some people do, where they use the new magazine to rake the release lever and old mag out of the slot then rock it home. It's honestly just as fast as, if not faster than, an AR mag change.
Personally, I'm an AK guy. I find they handle well when set up correctly, are easily accessorized, and are rugged and versatile. I've seen my converted Saiga .223 outshoot an AR that cost twice as much, and have far fewer problems. I know my gun inside and out, and trust it with my life. A lot of people limit themselves to viewing the AK as a rough, wooden-stocked, inaccurate relic. They don't see the potential these guns really have when you take the time and effort to set them up so they're right for you. Give the AK a chance. You won't regret it.
RangerHAAF
Member
The AK is never going to be an AR and vice versa. They are each uniquely different based upon the expectation and use of their respective operators. I have an AR-10 that I hunt with and an AK. I hunt with the AK also out to about 100+ yards. I've been fortunate that I've never had to choose between them.
My advice is to hold onto the AK and save your money to buy and embellish your AR when you get it.
My advice is to hold onto the AK and save your money to buy and embellish your AR when you get it.
JustinJ
Member
I have a few points of contention with the linked post.
First, what studies found the 5.56 to be statistically more lethal and at what ranges? Were they looking at all hits, center mass hits, against armor, etc?
Second, how practical is accuracy past 300 rounds for either rifle? Also, the accuracy at range advantage of the 5.56 is minimal, if at all, compared to the 5.45 in standard issue rifles. In regards to the irons, many feel the AK offers an advantage at close range in getting on target faster although aren't irons just backup in modern armies anyways?
Third, the post claims that "with the safety applied (requiring 2-3 seconds to react to a threat, disengage safety, and readopt a secure firing grip.." What is the supposed time with the AR platform? I did a little test last night and i can move my selector, reposition my hand and bring the rifle up in about one second. Either i should be in the Spetnaz or the selector isn't as a big a hindrance as claimed.
Next, the post acknowledges the benefits of having a folding stock but says the gun is completely innacurate if fired this way. Agreed. The folding stock is not there so the gun can be fired that way but to allow for easier egress of tanks and other vehicles and i would venture to make parachuting easier and safer since the folders were initially carried to paratroopers.
Last, the one huge advantage the AK has, which is hardly mentioned is the "to hell and back" reliability. All the ergonomics and accuracy in the world count for nothing if the weapon fails. I'm not saying M4s or M16s are too unreliable or fail too often but they are not as reliable as the AK, ecspecially in adverse conditions. In an interview i read with a former Spetnaz in Afghanistan he speaks of AKs running for weeks without being cleaned. One of the common caveats we hear with M4s is they are reliable if you keep them wet and and don't use them like a machine gun. Its said that an AK can be run at high rates of fire up until the point the barrel melts. The RPK really is nothing but an AK with a heavier and longer barrel and thicker receiver metal. If the gas tube of an M4 doesn't melt first the extreme temperatures on the bolt and carrier, in conjuction with carbon residue, from high rates of fire will be problematic to say the least.
I am actually a big fan of both weapons and they both have pros and cons. If aliens invaded tomorrow and i had to choose between a select fire 74 and a M4 the 74 wins out every time, IMO. Between the M4 and 47 i'd go with the M4 primarily due to weight of ammo.
FlyinBryan
Member
the o.p. specifically asked about 3 gun competition, and should he let the ak go and replace it with an ar15. what endorsement could possibly be more persuasive than this.
thats about as dominant as dominant can get tbh.
6 years? national level? never a single ak even in the top 20?
thats about as dominant as dominant can get tbh.
JustinJ
Member
I think the less accuracy of a 47 would be a hindrance but i have to wonder how many strong competitors have ever run a 74. I would venture that many of the more skilled participants are current and former LE and military and prefer what they know. Not to mention there is a bias towards the AR in general that stems from it being the american military weapon. I If i ever get into 3 gun i'll use what ever is the most fun and that may be more than one type of gun.
Certaindeaf
member
I think they sell those down at the store. Come on, man!
Last edited:
justinj, i have points of contentionwith about have of what you wrote, but i don't have the time or energy to to go through them. you obviously like the ak, that's great.
do you think that all top 3 gun guys only run the ar because they are familiar with it? you don't think any of those guys are competitive enough to think, "hmmm that 74 is much better than my ar, i think i'll try one". you think they all just shun the "commie weapon" even though it's the better choice? your argument is "this is better than that because of xyz, and those top guys in the sport just don't know what i know, because they stick to what they're used to".
really, man, if the ak were so clearly better and the issues with sights, accuracy, ergos, range, were a non issue, i think someone who shoots as much as those guys do would've figured it out by now.
then again, who knows, maybe you're just smarter than all of them.
do you think that all top 3 gun guys only run the ar because they are familiar with it? you don't think any of those guys are competitive enough to think, "hmmm that 74 is much better than my ar, i think i'll try one". you think they all just shun the "commie weapon" even though it's the better choice? your argument is "this is better than that because of xyz, and those top guys in the sport just don't know what i know, because they stick to what they're used to".
really, man, if the ak were so clearly better and the issues with sights, accuracy, ergos, range, were a non issue, i think someone who shoots as much as those guys do would've figured it out by now.
then again, who knows, maybe you're just smarter than all of them.
benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
The downside of the traditional AK siderail is that it sets the optic well above the iron sights, so cowitness is impossible and cheek weld is more of a chin weld. I shoot a 7.62x39mm AK with a gen-2 Kobra and an AR with a cowitnessed Eotech, and definitely prefer the lower, cowitnessed optic (I want to get an Ultimak/Aimpoint combo at some point for exactly that reason).
Having said that, an optic---even a high-mounted one---does wonders for an AK's shootability.
Here's my current AK setup:
I shot USPSA-style carbine matches with that rifle for a while and had a lot of fun with it, and surprised a few AR owners. I think if I had it to do over again, I'd go 5.45x39mm and go straight for the Ultimak, though. The downside of 7.62x39mm is weight; loaded steel magazines are nearly two pounds each, and 1 round of 7.62x39mm weighs about as much as 2 rounds of 5.45x39mm or 5.56x45mm. I also want to get a Vickers-style sling for it, finances permitting, but that's down the priority scale.
I would say that it is *almost* as fast as an AR change. Someone well practiced with AK reloads will be faster than the average person running an AR, but IMO given equivalent practice I think the AR is slightly faster to reload, partly because mag ejection is a tad quicker, but mostly because rock-in-and-lock into a square-cut hole is a bit harder to do very quickly than slamming a magazine into a flared magwell.
It is certainly possible to screw up reloads on both platforms, either by catching the AK's mag tab on the lip of the magwell instead of where it goes, or failing to fully seat an AR mag, and I've seen both done in matches (and done both myself).
AK's are definitely good guns, and I really like mine. I'm still looking for a good light setup, though. I tried a Tapco Galil-style forend with a rail at 9:00, and found that I shoot better with the original handguard than the Galil-style, but that's just me. I think an Ultimak will eventually solve that problem, but for the time being I may mount a rail segment on a secondhand upper handguard and see how that works.
JustinJ
Member
Well, unless you also believe the AR has superior ergonomics, sights, range and accuracy to the SCAR i think it must play a pretty big factor. But did i say the AK was better? I think shooter's experience, bias and less customability means fewer are willing to relearn with it. Personally, i think up to point, it ultimately will come down to the shooter's ability. Of course, the fact that so many of the top are sponsored by AR and AR accessory manufacturers could also have just a little something to do with it.
how is the scar any better in any of those categories? are you forgetting the gazillion guys that win 3 gun matches that do it on they're own dime, and only dream of being sponsored? the stats simply prove you wrong, and the ar is overwhelmingly the gun of choice for 3 gun. argue all you want, it doesn't change the facts.
JustinJ
Member
I actually didn't say it was better. What i sad what that AR is no better in those categories. Therefor if the AR was chosen solely on those categories we should see a lot more SCARs. But since you asked the charging handle comes to mind. Adjustable comb and being ambidexterous doesnt hurt either.
I've put out numerous explanations as to why that is. Rather than adress them all you do is repeat it.
Not the guys at the top.
Benezra, have you looked into the Midwest industries side mount with 30 mm tube? As i understand it will give a lower 1/3 irons witness with an aimpoint. Its at the top of my to get list.
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
In my experience in speaking with some of the top 3 gun shooters, not only do they like the sport, they like guns in general, and usually have an above-average understanding of the most commonly available platforms as well as some that are not nearly so common.
There's a surprising mix of background among the top competitors. Sure, the US AMU shooters all place pretty high, and in the sport itself, there are probably more people with LE and MIL backgrounds than in the general population, but some of the very best shooters are also just regular ol' citizens. Heck, at most matches, they include specific divisions for LE and MIL competitors.
I hear this a lot from people who've never actually competed. That serious 3 gun competitors opt for the AR out of patriotism, or because it's an American-made rifle, or whatever. Frankly, that's always been a claim that I find hard to swallow. At the very top end of the game, the athletes who are trying to take first will do anything within the rules that will give them even a slight competitive edge. If there were other rifles out there in other configurations that had a perception among the best shooters that they conferred some sort of advantage, I can guarantee you they'd adopt it in a heartbeat, regardless of what country it was from.
Nothing wrong with that. Plenty of people, myself included, will occasionally pull something out of the back of the safe just to see how it does at a local match. Heck, a few years ago, we had a guy show up and run a Tanker-style Garand at our local Tactical Rifle Match. He was a good shooter, with a background in High Power, and he even managed to place pretty well*, considering he was shooting a heavy, iron-sighted rifle that had to be reloaded every eight rounds.
*Middle of the pack, iirc.
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
You'd be surprised. 3 Gun is still a sport that is heavily dominated by amateur shooters. It's sour grapes to claim that the only people who actually win are the ones who shoot professionally. In reality, there are very few shooters who have all of their costs covered, especially for things like practice ammo.
WardenWolf
member
BenEzra, I've found I actually can view my iron sights through the rail of my BP-02, and through my UTG leverlock mount (which I've seen to be about as durable as the BP-02, having dropped a 10 pound rifle on the scope and the mount didn't flinch).
Also, what mount is that?
Get yourself a PSL-style stock (they're available as WASR takeoffs for cheap) and pretty it up. I think you'll be very pleased with what it does for the rifle's feel. They have a built-in cheek rest that makes shooting with optics much easier.
Also, what mount is that?
Get yourself a PSL-style stock (they're available as WASR takeoffs for cheap) and pretty it up. I think you'll be very pleased with what it does for the rifle's feel. They have a built-in cheek rest that makes shooting with optics much easier.
Last edited:
P-32
Member
In the end the results will be up to the OP. If it was me and I had no other means to obtain an AR, then the AK would go away. I’m sorry but the AR is a more tunable platform to needs at the time. I understand the AK shoots the cheap ammo available in the market nicely.
Like I said if there were no other options then the AK would go away. I also agree with those who say don’t sell a firearm. I sold a .22 I bought when I was a kid and have regretted it ever since. The bottom line is you need a AR to compete and be competitive. And yes you COULD use your AK. But why handicap your self from the get go? The AK is in danger of becoming an AR IMHO.
Justin, If you go up and down a high power match line 95% of the rifles are AR's or rifles based an the AR. There is a reason for this. The AR is easy to shoot, the bullet goes where it's pointed without beating the shooter up.
Like I said if there were no other options then the AK would go away. I also agree with those who say don’t sell a firearm. I sold a .22 I bought when I was a kid and have regretted it ever since. The bottom line is you need a AR to compete and be competitive. And yes you COULD use your AK. But why handicap your self from the get go? The AK is in danger of becoming an AR IMHO.
Justin, If you go up and down a high power match line 95% of the rifles are AR's or rifles based an the AR. There is a reason for this. The AR is easy to shoot, the bullet goes where it's pointed without beating the shooter up.
Last edited:
- Status
