AR vs. AK vs. Mini 14
- Thread starter sprice
- Start date
- Status
Ignition Override
Member
Have you guys read the thread by "Sturmgewehr", about his experience with a new Polish Tantal AK-74, which was assembled by Century Arms? The really strange timing on their standard warranty is just one issue.
The thread us titled "Century Arms....".
The thread us titled "Century Arms....".
First 5.56 vs 5.45: yes, 5.45 is cheaper but it is rarer in the US than 5.56. You are NOT going to pack around that 12K rounds you bought from Century, more than likely it'll be just several mags. 5.56 will be easier to find. Next, 5.56 has more options in loads available; from 45gr varment stuff to 75 & 77gr defensive loads and a dozen bonded rounds in between. Lastly the AR can use a 5.45 upper for cheap practice/plinking proir to.
The AK-74 is a tough system, no doubt. But it's round knocks if off for anything long term and/or mobile. Yes, I own 3 because they are fun and cool to have.
So we have Mini vs AR. Not even close. The Mini loses in every way. No spare parts available, reliable mags (work in all Minis) are only available through Ruger and are expensive and rare. No protection from corrosion, save for their SS models. Then their accuracy, or lack of, comes into play. Then the last nail is price, $600 (non-SS) at wally world, mid $500 used from CDNN; that's budget AR territory and only $100 off or so from new and used quality ARs.
So AR it is. 5.45 upper, or use cheap steel Russian .223, for practice. Even budget models lacking the chrome lined barrel still have an advantage over the Mini in parts availablity, ease of maintenance/replacment of parts, mag reliablity/availablity/price, and lastly adaptablility with optics, rails, and lights available by the 1000's.
With quality chrome lined ARs, such as the S&Ws, currently reaching down into the low $700 range new and parts available to build a high quality/reliable AR from scratch; nothing else beside a 7.62x39 AK makes sense.
Added option: 7.62x39 AK/AKM - it closes the gap on ammo and mag availablity with the AR. Tough as nails best desribes it and reliable, functioning versions are available from $400. Parts are available. So for a budget person who can't get into an AR yet, the AKM is an excellent choice. If you start throwing extras on there then go back to the AR.
The AK-74 is a tough system, no doubt. But it's round knocks if off for anything long term and/or mobile. Yes, I own 3 because they are fun and cool to have.
So we have Mini vs AR. Not even close. The Mini loses in every way. No spare parts available, reliable mags (work in all Minis) are only available through Ruger and are expensive and rare. No protection from corrosion, save for their SS models. Then their accuracy, or lack of, comes into play. Then the last nail is price, $600 (non-SS) at wally world, mid $500 used from CDNN; that's budget AR territory and only $100 off or so from new and used quality ARs.
So AR it is. 5.45 upper, or use cheap steel Russian .223, for practice. Even budget models lacking the chrome lined barrel still have an advantage over the Mini in parts availablity, ease of maintenance/replacment of parts, mag reliablity/availablity/price, and lastly adaptablility with optics, rails, and lights available by the 1000's.
With quality chrome lined ARs, such as the S&Ws, currently reaching down into the low $700 range new and parts available to build a high quality/reliable AR from scratch; nothing else beside a 7.62x39 AK makes sense.
Added option: 7.62x39 AK/AKM - it closes the gap on ammo and mag availablity with the AR. Tough as nails best desribes it and reliable, functioning versions are available from $400. Parts are available. So for a budget person who can't get into an AR yet, the AKM is an excellent choice. If you start throwing extras on there then go back to the AR.
Last edited:
henschman
Member
Another plus for the AR: it's ability to swap out uppers for different calibers. For a survival situation, you could carry around a .22 LR dedicated upper for gettin some supper out in the field, instead of carrying a whole separate .22 rifle. You could just go with a .22 bolt conversion, but I would trust a dedicated upper to last longer without breaking. And it is good for cheap practice, as well.
Yeah, the AR is definitely sounding like the winner here.
Yeah, the AR is definitely sounding like the winner here.
chicharrones
needs more ammo
unwise11
Member
Accuracy>Volume.. AR.
migkillertwo
Member
- Joined
- May 29, 2010
- Messages
- 279
I will admit that i have never shot an AK-74 nor have I shot a mini-14. However, I own and regularly shoot an AK-47 and I have held many mini-14s and m1As.
That said, I prefer the AR-15 over either one mainly because of 3 things
1: Weight. The AR-15, especially a bare-bones AR-15 with just a micro red-dot and a lightweight barrel profile can be much lighter than a stock mini-14 or AK-74
2: accessories. It is much easier to accessorize an AR-15 if you want. examples include easy attachment of optical sights or the attachment of free-floating rails. The latter is actually very easy if you have the right tools
3: ergonomics. For me, it is way easier to engage the safety and insert the magazine in an AR-15 than either the mini-14 or the ak-74.
I can see only 2 advantages to either platform over the AR-15 and those are value and reliability.
Regarding reliability, I'm not exactly sure if this is true. My Spikes AR-15 has been flawless after almost 500 rounds, and I've heard nothing but outstanding reliability for Spikes and Bravo Company upper receivers, which can be had inexpensively.
The Mini and the AK have the advantage for reliability though. Granted, an Arsenal SGL-31 costs as much as a Spikes Tactical ST-15LE, but you can have a just-as-good AK-74 for roughly 500-600$ if it is assembled from a parts-kit by a good gun-smith (which are not uncommon)
Now are the ergos and accessories on the AR-15 worth the extra 200$? In a SHTF situation, Im not sure and will probably never know since said situations aren't exactly known to happen in liberal democracies.
That said, I prefer the AR-15 over either one mainly because of 3 things
1: Weight. The AR-15, especially a bare-bones AR-15 with just a micro red-dot and a lightweight barrel profile can be much lighter than a stock mini-14 or AK-74
2: accessories. It is much easier to accessorize an AR-15 if you want. examples include easy attachment of optical sights or the attachment of free-floating rails. The latter is actually very easy if you have the right tools
3: ergonomics. For me, it is way easier to engage the safety and insert the magazine in an AR-15 than either the mini-14 or the ak-74.
I can see only 2 advantages to either platform over the AR-15 and those are value and reliability.
Regarding reliability, I'm not exactly sure if this is true. My Spikes AR-15 has been flawless after almost 500 rounds, and I've heard nothing but outstanding reliability for Spikes and Bravo Company upper receivers, which can be had inexpensively.
The Mini and the AK have the advantage for reliability though. Granted, an Arsenal SGL-31 costs as much as a Spikes Tactical ST-15LE, but you can have a just-as-good AK-74 for roughly 500-600$ if it is assembled from a parts-kit by a good gun-smith (which are not uncommon)
Now are the ergos and accessories on the AR-15 worth the extra 200$? In a SHTF situation, Im not sure and will probably never know since said situations aren't exactly known to happen in liberal democracies.
Remember you just have cheap ammo so I would think a AR would not get much better than 2MOA a Saiga does about as well(at least thats what the Sagia owners claim)
You should have listed the SIG556 as a choice.
Century guns have their problems but a Sagia AK is the choice listed.
You should have listed the SIG556 as a choice.
Century guns have their problems but a Sagia AK is the choice listed.
migkillertwo
Member
- Joined
- May 29, 2010
- Messages
- 279
IDK if the sig556 can be compared to these guns. The sig556 is way more expensive than even the best "mil-spec" AR-15s out there.
Owned all of them. Currently, only own the AR-15s.
AK-74 is dependent on continuing imports of cheap ammo and mags. That can change overnight.
Currently there are no new kits being built with mil spec barrels. Anyone want to take a chance on a Lancaster?
Mini-14s...naaawww thanks.
M
AK-74 is dependent on continuing imports of cheap ammo and mags. That can change overnight.
Currently there are no new kits being built with mil spec barrels. Anyone want to take a chance on a Lancaster?
Mini-14s...naaawww thanks.
M
Last edited:
Sig 556 could be had for just under a grand last I checked.
I got one of those $370 Bulgarian CAI AK74s [with 3 mags and free shipping] back around Aug. The front sight is slightly off center, but not so much it couldn't be zeroed. Other than that it's been fine and accurate enough, just wished they'd have chrome lined the barrel. What's that cost, another $30 - 50? CAI has a Romanian AK74 for $400 that comes with 1 mag and does have chrome lining, comes with better furniture too; find myself wishing I'd gotten that one instead. Oh well.
I got one of those $370 Bulgarian CAI AK74s [with 3 mags and free shipping] back around Aug. The front sight is slightly off center, but not so much it couldn't be zeroed. Other than that it's been fine and accurate enough, just wished they'd have chrome lined the barrel. What's that cost, another $30 - 50? CAI has a Romanian AK74 for $400 that comes with 1 mag and does have chrome lining, comes with better furniture too; find myself wishing I'd gotten that one instead. Oh well.
Where's the option for all three?
I have a couple of AR's and the Mini, I haven't bought an AK variant yet but that's on the list. Every gun has it's advantages and disadvantages.
For me the AR is pretty useful because it's a little more friendly for mounting optics, and rails. It's also easier to buy a 6.8 upper and deer hunt with.
I have a couple of AR's and the Mini, I haven't bought an AK variant yet but that's on the list. Every gun has it's advantages and disadvantages.
For me the AR is pretty useful because it's a little more friendly for mounting optics, and rails. It's also easier to buy a 6.8 upper and deer hunt with.
Pete D.
Member
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2010
- Messages
- 2,660
+1 (or + a few)
I understand the attraction of the AKs. I wonder, though, about ammo availability under the conditions that were implied by the words "combat/survival". Ammo for the AKs is plentiful now but would it be so once the supply is cut off as it surely would be if we were reduced to a large scale survival situation.
It may be that all ammo would be hard to come by; hopefully, the home grown .223 would be a bit easier to find.
Pete
lobo9er
Member
depends what you want it for
Not like we haven't had enough "vs" threads on these to fill volumes, but it is going to be challenging to lump combat and survival rifles together. It is even going to be more difficult to pick a "best" in just one category without criteria.
Since any of them will kill game up to and including deer any of them would put meat on the table, but because accuracy is important for subsistence hunting the AR will "win" the survival requirement. If a little maintenance is done the AR is a reliable platform so any issue about reliability goes out the window in any realistic situation.
The Ruger just doesn't have a combat record so it is out of consideration.
While sufficiently accurate within 100 meters the vaunted reliability of the AK isn't any better than a maintained AR. That limitation on accuracy due to those loose tolerances that make it reliable for a primitive who doesn't take care of his weapon make it far less valuable in either category.
The nod then goes to the AR because of the failings of the others.
Since any of them will kill game up to and including deer any of them would put meat on the table, but because accuracy is important for subsistence hunting the AR will "win" the survival requirement. If a little maintenance is done the AR is a reliable platform so any issue about reliability goes out the window in any realistic situation.
The Ruger just doesn't have a combat record so it is out of consideration.
While sufficiently accurate within 100 meters the vaunted reliability of the AK isn't any better than a maintained AR. That limitation on accuracy due to those loose tolerances that make it reliable for a primitive who doesn't take care of his weapon make it far less valuable in either category.
The nod then goes to the AR because of the failings of the others.
CSA 357
Member
hso, you never watched the a team?
I see it now, blued model with fugly stock. It's also the older carbine not the ranch model so optics options are even worse.
I actually had that model (wood stock, bought new for $430 before I knew any better, ~`98), gas nipple/whatever it's called would rust inside the "piston" and you had to slam the gun, buttstock first, to dislodge it. Jam-o-matic with every magazine I tried except for the stock 5 rounder, factory 20-30 round mags were not available/retardedly expensive at the time. Don't get me wrong, the little gun had some potential, but had I known better I'd picked up a SAR-1, mags, and a case or 2 of ammo.
Still stands despite price, the AR and AK are better in every way.
The legendary reliability of the AK doesn't exist when you include ALL the guns sold as one in America today. Overall, they have earned the reputation they get, cheap, with glitches.
Durable, yes, don't mistake that with reliable. Junk AK's pop up in posts every month, there is a long trail of tears where the word of mouth reputation of the AK was gutted by the cheap junk imports. There's NO common blueprint for them, you CAN'T indiscriminately swap parts and keep it running.
Beyond that, some have hand picked cherry AK's, primarily from well industrialized nations like Yugoslavia. They are the exception, not the rule. Will all the parts interchange into a Chinese made AK? No. And you better have a serious assortment of tools in that go bag to do it.
The AK operator controls are no great asset, either. The charging handle is on the wrong side, better for parading miles down Moscow Square. The top cover is useless for mounting optics, and most of the accessories now on the market came because of the dynamic aftermarket built on a competitor's design. AK's are improving because they adopt AR parts. Very little new on their own.
In terms of ease of use, who cares if the AK is uber durable when it won't help the user in actual combat? The wrong side reciprocating charging handle can hang up in doorways and openings, it has no bolt hold back which forces the user to 1) notice they ran out of ammo in a firefight because it went "click!" 2) load the mag against a closed bolt, and 3) wrong hand cycle the bolt against the fully loaded mag spring tension.
It's not how good some youtube warrior does it, how fast is the average AK reload compared to the AR? Face up to it, a MODERN combat weapon doesn't screw with the operator and force them to do things in an arbitrary manner. It HELPS them.
You want a real combat weapon, the only one on the list is the AR. Frankly, a good case could be made AK vs. Winchester 94 Lever gun. The .30-30 won't lose much ground to an AK, if anything, the only difference is speed of shooting. The lever gun is more user friendly, something people who can pay money appreciate to the tune of over 5 million sold.
People who had no choice about their service to their country, eh, they get AK's. I feel sorry for them, they are obviously handicapped by the choice. They have generally lost most tactical confrontations when they come up against free world weapons. It's why the AK is symbolic of terrorism - they can't win a fair fight.
Love the underdog all you want, choosing a loser gun is a bit naive. It's not reliable, it's harder to operate, when it breaks, it's stays that way, few owners have the skill to cut welds or remove rivets and repair one. In the last ammo panic, it dried up. .30-30 was still on the shelf, and more likely to be found everywhere.
And some poor guy will get one under the tree in less than a day, and be overjoyed. Me? I'd be asking when the gunstore opened to get money down for a real combat carbine.
Durable, yes, don't mistake that with reliable. Junk AK's pop up in posts every month, there is a long trail of tears where the word of mouth reputation of the AK was gutted by the cheap junk imports. There's NO common blueprint for them, you CAN'T indiscriminately swap parts and keep it running.
Beyond that, some have hand picked cherry AK's, primarily from well industrialized nations like Yugoslavia. They are the exception, not the rule. Will all the parts interchange into a Chinese made AK? No. And you better have a serious assortment of tools in that go bag to do it.
The AK operator controls are no great asset, either. The charging handle is on the wrong side, better for parading miles down Moscow Square. The top cover is useless for mounting optics, and most of the accessories now on the market came because of the dynamic aftermarket built on a competitor's design. AK's are improving because they adopt AR parts. Very little new on their own.
In terms of ease of use, who cares if the AK is uber durable when it won't help the user in actual combat? The wrong side reciprocating charging handle can hang up in doorways and openings, it has no bolt hold back which forces the user to 1) notice they ran out of ammo in a firefight because it went "click!" 2) load the mag against a closed bolt, and 3) wrong hand cycle the bolt against the fully loaded mag spring tension.
It's not how good some youtube warrior does it, how fast is the average AK reload compared to the AR? Face up to it, a MODERN combat weapon doesn't screw with the operator and force them to do things in an arbitrary manner. It HELPS them.
You want a real combat weapon, the only one on the list is the AR. Frankly, a good case could be made AK vs. Winchester 94 Lever gun. The .30-30 won't lose much ground to an AK, if anything, the only difference is speed of shooting. The lever gun is more user friendly, something people who can pay money appreciate to the tune of over 5 million sold.
People who had no choice about their service to their country, eh, they get AK's. I feel sorry for them, they are obviously handicapped by the choice. They have generally lost most tactical confrontations when they come up against free world weapons. It's why the AK is symbolic of terrorism - they can't win a fair fight.
Love the underdog all you want, choosing a loser gun is a bit naive. It's not reliable, it's harder to operate, when it breaks, it's stays that way, few owners have the skill to cut welds or remove rivets and repair one. In the last ammo panic, it dried up. .30-30 was still on the shelf, and more likely to be found everywhere.
And some poor guy will get one under the tree in less than a day, and be overjoyed. Me? I'd be asking when the gunstore opened to get money down for a real combat carbine.
bshnt2015
Member
IMHO, AR system is the hands down winner, ammo, mags and parts are everywhere. AR offers the user good ergonomics. The AR system is battle tested and can stay in the fight.
I've own all of them and have seen all of them put bad folks down. Overall cost of the rifle goes to the mini-14, they work, seen plenty of them around socal and norcal. Mini-14 and AR share 223 ammo source. AK maybe a bit tougher to get when chips are down.
I can easily mount a RDS or scope on my AR and then switch out to 6.8 to do more if needed. So IMHO, the AR.
I've own all of them and have seen all of them put bad folks down. Overall cost of the rifle goes to the mini-14, they work, seen plenty of them around socal and norcal. Mini-14 and AR share 223 ammo source. AK maybe a bit tougher to get when chips are down.
I can easily mount a RDS or scope on my AR and then switch out to 6.8 to do more if needed. So IMHO, the AR.
FMJMIKE
Member
I have owned them all in the past and now own 2 AR-15's and 1 Mini-14. I believe the versatility and accuracy of the AR-15 makes it a better survival/defense/hunting rifle. You just can't buy a cheap AR-15 and expect it to run as reliably as a quality built rifle. If money is a problem buy a Ruger 580 Series Mini-14. If you can afford a quality AR-15 then that is a better route to go IMHO........
Waterfowler
Member
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2009
- Messages
- 20
sansone said:
I'd take an AR too but I'd take any of my stamped and riveted things over a Mini any day. They are both super reliable but the mini shoots horribly, even with a scope, and the AKs have better built, more reliable magazines. Maybe that's why my Mini-14 Ranch Rifle is one firearm I don't have an ounce of regret selling.
Why can't an American designed and built rifle be as accurate as a sloppily and cheaply built eastern bloc rifle I don't know, but that's the reality.
- Status
