Another slant on the AK/AR argument.

[elmerfudd]

I wish we had just copied the AK back in the 50's. I've no doubt that we would have turned it into a much better rifle. One with good sights, better ergonomics and higher manufacturing quality.

It's not that Russians build crap. They don't. They just seem to be so obsessed with ruggedness and simplification that they forget that people actually have to use their products. Just put a good Russian optic up against a good American one. Both are rugged, both have good clear glass, but generally the Russian one is mounted where a cheek weld isn't even possible, has turrets that can't be easily adjusted and it has a third rate reticle. The American optic on the other hand excels in all these areas.

It seems to me that all Russian military products share this design philosophy. The quality is good enough, but you're expected to adapt to the product rather than the other way around.

 

[jackdanson]

Given that there are so many non milspec variations in the AR platform and none in the AK platform (that aren't American) why do we assume the AR is higher quality?

Because I've shot them.

 

[The_Pretender]

I saw this and it has some good points. I never saw the AK as the weapon of the enemy, I always approached it from a gun aficionado's stand point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvrG4T2K4sE&feature=related

Way too many people caught up in AK vs AR. I realize I open myself up to attack here, but I get so tired of hearing about it.

Until you experience war first hand you are not going to respect or appreciate either weapon as much from a battle standpoint.

Most of you are never even going to fire an AK on full auto, which is it's primary fire mode. It's no different than saying a corvette sucks and you've never driven one over 30 mph.

As far as accuracy goes, these two rifles are made to kill men. Nothing more, nothing less. Most of us that own these rifles will never use them for their intended purpose. 2 MOA or 5 MOA doesn't mean a thing if you can't hit a man that is shooting back at you.

Put your finger in the middle of your chest, and make a 5 inch circle. Are you really going to notice if a round hits where your finger is, or a little off to one side, or a little high or low? You will be going down regardless.

If you want to stick lights and lasers on your gun and pretend you're G.I. Joe, get an AR. You can be all suited up for the battle that is never going to happen.

Or you can own an AK and think you are super hardcore tough and no matter what you are going to win the fight and you never have to clean your gun.

Aren't these stereotypes ludicrous? But it's what we see on a daily basis.

A solution: Try owning both. Love them for what they are. Respect them for what they do.

Rather than argue over apples and oranges, why not post topics on how much fun you had, or something cool you did?

 

[stubbicatt]

Why.... Must not read this.... can't help it....

The dreaded AK/AR thread is back!

 

[rust collector]

Heh. Here we go again.

I agree with the pretender. Different design philosophies and development paths turned out different rifles with disparate strengths and weaknesses.

Maybe if the discussion was limited to those who have used them in combat, we'd get more fire than smoke. Otherwise, it's all just another armchair opinion.

I use an AR because it's more suitable for my purposes. Those do not include suppressive fire and celebratory air bursts. For post-apocalyptic use, I'll just pick up one of the millions of AKs strewn about the planet.

 

[mljdeckard]

If Tapco is poor quality, someone forgot to tell my SKS.

The reason American designs are fussier, is they were designed to run tighter. You won't get near the accuracy out of an AK that you will from an AR. I don't really care if you can dump a nandful of sand into the action of an AR or an AK, because I don't plan on doing it to EITHER.

In this country you have a choice. There isn't a thread running on a Russian gun forum complaining about how these crappy Russian-assembled ARs won't run with Russian-made magazines.

 

[Justin]

AK vs. AR (some language NSFW)

 

[rizbunk77]

If I have a foreign car and it runs well with every kind of gas I put in it, and I have An American made car that not only needs a certain kind of gas, but also won't work with many domestic gas nozzles, is it because the car is too high quality? Wouldn't that lead you to question what the hell is going on? Wouldn't you respect to the foreign car that runs well on about anything?

 

[Justin]

You mean like a Trabant?

 

[rizbunk77]

good points fellas.

 

[rizbunk77]

I want you fellas to know if history keeps repeating itself, I am going to be back in a year and a half or so with this **** again so be thinking.

 

[Tirod]

If there is a major point in the differences between AR and AK it is the magazine itself. Kalashnikov designed the magazine to function reliably without fail. He did it with machined feed lips and a heavy body made to withstand extreme abuse. He made the mag well big enough to accomodate it, and then, the issuing government gave each soldier a few magazines - and he has to reload them, that's all he gets. Third world economies can't afford to make millions of magazines and toss them like kleenx.

Conversely, the AR was developed at a time when American logistics foresaw the actual shipment of loaded mags direct to the field. Magazines were moving to one use disposability, and the supply train of American industry could crank out more than a soldier could carry even empty.

Do cheap stamped AK mags function well? No, they were never meant to be made that way. Are there AR magazines with machined feed lips and heavy fiberglass bodies that can literally be driven over without damage? No, much as Magpul has been working to that end.

The whole question of comparing the AK and AR by their magazines is both dead on and a complete farce - because nobody can reverse the circumstances and prove any further point other than the magazines are exactly the opposite in durability. Arguing they are representative of the quality of their respective firearm is like saying the gas tank alone decides the quality of an automobile.

What goes into those magazines has a lot more to do with down range performance than what color the mag follower is. I'm not real interested in filling up with imported 4 MOA low cost plinker ammo with mediocre ballistics directly comparable to the .30-30. I have better things to spend my money on.

 

[BornAgainBullseye]

Owned 3 AK's Two Romanian CAI builds, and 1 GP parts kit build that was way nicer than the CAI builds. Over the years I have came across several commie mags that were new in wrapper and were worthless. I have had USA mags that were worthless... I have a few USA mags that have never missed a lick. An AR does not miss a beat due to being made in the USA or Neither does an AK... The AR usually misses a beat due to it farting where it feeds from.... Out of spec ammo, or being a nerd and not clacking the full mag before inserting it into the rifle.... It has nothing to do with the MADE IN THE USA logo. It is a function of design. The M16 was designed to be a Rifleman's rifle.. The AK was made to fire every time. If i had to make a shot count, there is no mistake which one I would bet my life on to deliver. Now... If i had to crawl around in some God forsaken mud jungle or sandbox for weeks at a time... Far away from a safe place.....and not having to take a shot over 200 yards.. Id take an AK anyday. If I had to kick in doors and shoot through walls, cars bad guys to kill other bad guys. Id take the AK. Why not have it both ways....? Thats why we live in the USA. Why do we need 3 AK's and an AR15??? we don't, but we can, so therefore I will.

 

[OHtard]

u.s. Palm high quality us made ak mags.. just shot the camp perry pop up match with a cheap wasr 10. i hit 32 out of 40 targets out to 300 meters. works fine for me. i have ar's and ak's, they are all good rifles just different.

 

[RedLion]

Well, honestly, American industry shouldn't be based on the quality of a handful of magazine manufacturers, same thing with communist manufacturers (whatever that means).

The reason, i believe, that there is such a variance here in products is because someone is looking to make a dollar and either did a sloppy job of manufacturing or a sloppy job of testing or both. The stuff we get from most communist countries for the AK was, and probably still is, made on original machines used to make the real military hardware.

There is such a pronounced difference in AR-15s because of marketing. Look how many manufacturers there are in the AR market, then consider that most of them DO NOT manufacture some or most of their own parts. How can you compete with another company making the same product with the same parts? simple, marketing. If I tell customers my barrels are "special" because I added a tiny bit more carbon to them, people will buy them. Whether its useful or not, I don't care, because I just made money. Same goes for bolts, carriers, etc. Some parts have been upgraded like the ejectors and mag followers, but most of the industry has taken to that and its well known and well understood.

And really, if you take a mil-spec AR part, it will fit in any mil-spec AR, whether its made by Colt, Armalite, DPMS, or any other manufacturer, which is very similar to a Chinese AK receiver fitting a Russian barrel or something like that. None of those manufacturers communicated their dimensions to each other, but the end products still work together fine.

The magazine issue in the AR-15 is more of a flaw in the design. the original AR-10 used straight magazines, so when it was scaled down, the magazines were still kept as straight 20 round mags, which work fine. The government during Vietnam wanted 30 round mags, but Colt had already sold many receivers to the gov. that wouldn't easily accept properly curved 30 round mags. A straight 30 round mag wasn't really an option, so colt had to manufacture a partially straight, partially curved mag. Along with the fact that the mag was aluminum and had a strange geometry makes it quite fragile, and quite susceptible to failure.

 

[happygeek]

rizbunk77 wrote:

Not one good response to my first post. Missing the point. Given that there are so many non milspec variations in the AR platform and none in the AK platform (that aren't American) why do we assume the AR is higher quality?

Personally, I don't think you can even compare a $700 Bushmaster/DPMS/Stag/whatever AR15 to a real deal Colt M4. Calling the AR15/M4/M16 a POS because some cheap knockoff jammed on you while using cheap ammo doesn't make sense to me.

Personally, I bought a Sig 556 SWAT model. Best of both worlds ... or at least that's what the magazine review said. As soon as someone wants to issue me 3,000 rounds to test it (and buy me a replacement barrel), I'll let you know how it compares to the Colt M4.

 

[fireman 9731]

The cheapest AK will outperform the cheapest AR without a doubt.

The AK was designed with reliability and firepower in mind. I'm not sure what Ed Stoner wanted when he designed the AR. But the AK is supreme when it comes to reliability and fire power.

As soon as someone wants to issue me 3,000 rounds to test it (and buy me a replacement barrel), I'll let you know how it compares to the Colt M4.

Do the same thing with an AK and you wont need a replacement barrel!

 

[AR-15 Rep]

Both have the good points and the bad. The reason you see variations in AR's is that we have had the freedom and resources to look at a design and try to improve it. Whether it works or not, is up to the manufacturer of that part, you have good ones and bad.

 

[elmerfudd]

I think the AR will always be preferred over the AK by serious civilian shooters, but not because it's a better combat rifle. It's just more accurate and better suited to optics mounting and when your primary use for the rifle is at the range or maybe doing some hunting it's bound to come out on top.

Now if our range time consisted of rolling around in the mud and shooting silhouettes at 100m then we might have a different opinion.

At this point they're both dated designs. If the military were to choose a new rifle starting from scratch, I'd be very surprised if they chose either one.

 

[scoutsabout]

What about how the difference in calibers relates to reliability? I bet an AR-10, you know... chambered in .308 Winchester... would be a more reliable AR... and might even start standing up to the AK.

???

.

 

[[Pb]]

What about how the difference in calibers relates to reliability? I bet an AR-10, you know... chambered in .308 Winchester... would be a more reliable AR... and might even start standing up to the AK.

<ERROR>


<DOES NOT COMPUTE>


Try again.

 

[briansmithwins]

What about how the difference in calibers relates to reliability? I bet an AR-10, you know... chambered in .308 Winchester... would be a more reliable AR... and might even start standing up to the AK.

So by that line of reasoning the Chauchat in .30-06 ought to be more reliable than the M14?

BSW

 

[Justin]

The cheapest AK will outperform the cheapest AR without a doubt.

What proof do you have to back this statement up? How do you define "cheapest?" Are we talking home-built parts guns that Bubba put together in his spare time, or ones from actual manufacturers?

How do you define "outperform"? Reliability? Accuracy? Durability under heavy use? Modularity?

 

[wally]

It's not that Russians build crap. They don't. They just seem to be so obsessed with ruggedness and simplification that they forget that people actually have to use their products. Just put a good Russian optic up against a good American one. Both are rugged, both have good clear glass, but generally the Russian one is mounted where a cheek weld isn't even possible, has turrets that can't be easily adjusted and it has a third rate reticle.

Maybe, but before I had Lasik the Russian PSOP scope was the only reticle and target image I could see in focus.

After the Lasik it usually is only about a turn of the diopter to make the reticle clear, but its still clear on the Russian scope. Sometimes good enough is better.

I appreciate the simplification from good design to put the apparent image at a virtual distance to where old eyes can still use it, and not having the diopter adjustment certainly makes the scope easier to seal and more rugged.

the mounting issue is a limitation of the gun not the scope and not really any worse than scoping an AR with a non-removable carry handle.

--wally.

 

[goon]

I like a spirited discussion as much as the next guy, but this isn't really another slant on this argument. It's the same argument.