AR vs. AK vs. Mini 14

Which an' Why?

  • AR-15

    Votes: 213 61.9%

  • Ak-74

    Votes: 68 19.8%

  • Ruger Mini-14

    Votes: 63 18.3%
  • Total voters
    344
Status
Not open for further replies.
NC-MIKE said:
AK- Dead nuts reliable and accurate out to 100 yards
Click to expand...

AK47 cartridge is useful up to 300m.
AK74 is a bit more inherently accurate than a '47. A '74 cart has better trajectory than it's Dad (7.62x39mm) for longer distance shooting and that cartridge is arguably superior to 5.56NATO for soft tissue yaw. Heard has to do with air pocket in tip of bullet but memory maybe mistaken on that.

There are many reasons for opinion for AR>AK74, some quite valid. But to say a '74 is good only for 100m is just silly.

Back on topic, I already own a nice '47 so im thinking about an AR but the '74 is nothing to underestimate and i wouldnt be upset to have one instead [of AR].

Also battlefield pickup compatibility is silly argument too. If the ammo is laying around chances are the firearm for it is laying there too. So buy what you are most comfortable with and run it hard until you would need to adapt to situations.
 
Last edited:
Also battlefield pickup compatibility is silly argument too. If the ammo is laying around chances are the firearm for it is laying there too. So buy what you are most comfortable with and run it hard until you would need to adapt to situations.
Click to expand...

Valid point.
Nothing against a good AK either.
I've spent enough time on the range and in the woods to know that under less than ideal conditions, it can be pretty damn hard to pick out a man with even the slightest camo at even 100 yards. One time I was putting targets up and when I looked back at the shooting benches, the buddy I was with (wearing an M-65 field jacket and jeans) had freakin' disappeared! He wasn't trying to hide - but even that little bit of antiquated camo was enough to make him very hard to see against the background of trees on a sunny day at the range.
So the 300 yard limitation of the AK's cartridge is not really that big of a deal in most cases. Truth is I've had seven of them because I like them - I just cant find one that suits me for what I want (and some have been straight-up POS's), so I keep selling them and looking for another.
And with prices on AK's creeping up, it's hard to justify not buying the American built rifle that's compatible with the American service rifle and firing ammunition that's widely available and made by virtually every domestic manufacturer, especially when that American rifle is generally more accurate.
And when it comes down to the choice between an $800+ AK and putting a couple hundred more to it for a used M1A or maybe a new FAL, the choice is pretty clear (to me).

And I'm not sure the FA arguments matter at all either.
I fired my M-16 on burst once. For one training exercise... pretty much just to know how it worked. This was with a rifle issued to me by Uncle Sam when I was active Army. ONCE. Furthermore, I know I can run a semi-auto almost as fast as FA fire for a double or triple tap. I've had people look at my semi-auto guns and ask where the selector switch is, only to learn that practice is what gives me my rate of fire. Even that has limited utility for anything other than close range defense.
But for the purpose of this discussion, how many of us are actually going to be using our own privately owned select fire AK's, M-16's, or Mini's? I'd bet a very small number of us have ever even seen FA examples of all these rifles.
So lets stick to the semi-auto clones.
 
Last edited:
For me... And I know you will laugh. I am a novice at this stuff.

All I know is what I play on Call of Duty, and I am deadly with my M16.

600 yard kill zone is hard to get around and it is the most accurate rife I have played with.

I am saving up now to get my M16 in real life, both the A3 223 version for the end of the world, and the 22 lr SPR for practice and plinking.
 
Since we are on the matter of reliability, explain why a DI M4 jammed the most versus the SCAR,416 and XM8? Almost twice as much as the 416 did, so you see, simply adding a gas piston doubled reliability.
Click to expand...
The 416, SCAR, and XM8 were allowed to use improved magazine designs; the M4 was stuck with old USGI magazines, as I recall. Many of the dust failures were magazine related, so using the improved magazines with the M4 would have resulted in less of a difference.

As to the XM8, I believe it melted the polymer barrel trunnion and/or handguards during DoD tests under sustained firing, so not all the bugs were worked out of that design either.

A gas piston is a much better design because you don't get barrel fouling from recaptured gases
Click to expand...
Please clarify. DI vs piston doesn't affect barrel fouling at all, to my knowledge.

Also, contrary to popular belief, the AR system vents the excess gas to the atmosphere via the two gas ports in the bolt carrier; it does not pump the gas into the action. You will get a slight amount of fouling from residual gas in the gas tube after the action opens, but I can vouch for the fact that an AK does that too to some extent (the AK gas piston tube is open to the receiver), and most of the residual gas in the receiver during cycling comes from the chamber/barrel anyway.

in a combat situation, your gun needs to be able to tolerate even the dirtiest ammunition, something the M16A1 failed to do in 'Nam.
Click to expand...
The dirtiest 5.56x45mm ammunition I know of on the U.S. market is Wolf/Tula, and even a cheap AR can go 15,000 rounds of Wolf without cleaning if it has proper chamber dimensions, is assembled properly, and some oil is squirted in there every thousand rounds or so...

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2010/06/09/a-clean-wouldnt-hurt/

BTW, note that most of the long-term fouling buildup in that test occurred around the bolt lugs, not the gas tube. A 416 will foul there just as well.
 
I don't think it can really be argued that a DI system runs dirtier and hotter and needs to be cleaned more often than a gas piston system in a similar rifle. The question is whether it runs dirtier enough or hotter enough or has to be cleaned so much more often that it is a significant handicap.

I would say that might depend on the conditions it is used under. For sustained use in the field under dirty conditions with limited tools and limited shelter in which to clean, it might become an issue. Other than that, probably not.

As has been said, a quality AR can run a long time between cleanings... a chrome-lined bore and chamber really helps in this regard. That also helps with running dirty Russian lacquered case ammo, and makes cleaning easier. However, I have still never seen an AR do anything like "Ol' Dirty," the FAL that has fired over 15,000 rounds while still functioning reliably (and is still going strong, apparently). http://www.falfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=68486

And I'm sure there are AKs in Africa with round counts without cleanings that would put that to shame.
 
Last edited:
SpentCasing said:
Also battlefield pickup compatibility is silly argument too. If the ammo is laying around chances are the firearm for it is laying there too. So buy what you are most comfortable with and run it hard until you would need to adapt to situations.
Click to expand...
My reason for wanting to have an AR that can run 5.45, 5.56 and 7.62x39 as well as use both AR and AK magazines is for maximum flexibility. And in an emergency situation I expect it is the military calibers that will be most available in any quantity, from a number of sources (what retailers are still up, other shooters, and yesm the possibility of running the opposition's ammo). And while you may very well be correct that if one were to capture ammo in a force on force scenario one would also capure the arms that use that ammo - I'd much rather bet my life on my own arms that I've maintained and trained with than on a pickup with a dubious history.

My opinion only, and your mileage may vary.
 
An AR that can use an AK mag has to have major surgery on the mag well. The two are almost completely incompatible. An AR that can shoot 7.62x39 requires a special magazine. It's a tapered case getting shoved through a straight mag well. Even the most vocal enthusiasts haven't found mags that work reliably.

There will not be ammo laying around unless it's within arm's reach and the carrier was just rendered helpless. As the ammo panic last year proved, mil calibers dry up within days. Unless you have some, you can't get more, and you can only carry so much. After that - if you are on the move - good luck. Most ammo is located in urban built up areas, exactly where all the survivalists plan not to be.

Give it six months, we'll be carrying staffs and longbows. A good sword will be a prized possession.
 
Even the most vocal enthusiasts haven't found mags that work reliably.
Click to expand...
Not an entirely accurate statement, but there is no doubt that the magwell of the AR is not compatible with the case taper of 7.62x39 and the magazines needed to make it work have been long in coming. My current C Products mags, updated with AK springs, have been trouble free.

Addressing the OP, all I can offer is that I have owned all three and have shot thousands of rounds through each. Each has their own virtues and faults (many of which have become overstated into Internet folklore), but in the end the most satisfying platform for any use I can conjure is the AR. It's fastest and easiest to run, easiest to update, and boringly reliable in the climates found in the US and most of the world. It trades off precision of manufacture for ease of support (in diametric opposition to the AK, which is easier to make but not as easy to keep running from a supply of spare parts).

The AK and Mini have their roles and uses, and I will not disrespect them in any way. They serve yeoman duty as lower-cost rifles of adequate accurate, and (in the case of the AK) with the promise of suitability to the harshest of climates.
 
AR because of parts, magazine and ammunition availability. Also, the AR can be worked on very easily.
 
For everyone bashing the Mini-14......the new ones are nothing like the old ones. A new Mini is just as accurate as an AR and they have always been more reliable when using factory mags.
 
When Brownells makes a separate cataloge of 100 pages selling mini 14 parts and accessories then maybe I will look at the Ruger again to see if it is as accurate and reliable as the AR, until then there is no reason.
 
When Brownells makes a separate cataloge of 100 pages selling mini 14 parts and accessories then maybe I will look at the Ruger again to see if it is as accurate and reliable as the AR, until then there is no reason
Click to expand...
I will concede that the Mini-14 is not tacticool enough to be Gecko45 approved, but they work.
 
On the same hand, I've heard people talk about how a long stroke piston throws you off balance. In all the rounds fired in my friend's SF AK-S, I have not felt any throwing off of balance, and I've put at least 200 rounds on semi, around 500 more on FA myself. So no wonder a DI system is only found in the AR platforms, its advantages are minimal enough that every other 5.56 rifle used as the standard (AUG, G36, SA80, FAMAS) all are either gas piston or recoil operated, probably pretty smart consideringthe rifle's poor desert/jungle performance.
 
The AK and Mini have their roles and uses, and I will not disrespect them in any way.
Click to expand...

Ultimately, that's what any of these discussion are about. On a fundamental level, these sorts of discussions generate a lot of heat for two reasons:

  • They have a personal attachment to a particular platform for purely emotional reasons.
  • Most people don't have a basic understanding of how to define the role they need a rifle to fill.

If you live in a location where your longest rifle range is only 100-200 yards, then the added expense of a rifle that will reach out further may be a waste of money.

If you live in a place where you can shoot to 400-600 yards, then the added reach of a rifle capable of that sort of accuracy is a wise expenditure, presuming you're willing to practice at those distances.

If the role your rifle needs to play can be described as "field accuracy to 200ish yards" then both the Mini and the AK would be reasonable choices to make.
 
On the same hand, I've heard people talk about how a long stroke piston throws you off balance.
Click to expand...

I have never, ever heard anyone say that a piston-driven system "throws you off balance." Piston-driven guns have more mass moving back and forth, and will therefore disturb the site picture more than a DI system, making follow-up shots slower.

In all the rounds fired in my friend's SF AK-S, I have not felt any throwing off of balance, and I've put at least 200 rounds on semi, around 500 more on FA myself.
Click to expand...

700 rounds is barely broken in for a rifle. Besides, you never described the circumstances under which you fired those rounds. Nor have you answered the questions I asked of you in my previous post.

So no wonder a DI system is only found in the AR platforms, its advantages are minimal enough that every other 5.56 rifle used as the standard (AUG, G36, SA80, FAMAS) all are either gas piston or recoil operated,
Click to expand...


The DI system fundamentally makes for a better rifle for a number of reasons:

  • Fewer moving parts means less of a disturbed site picture between shots.
  • Removing the piston means that the operating system of the rifle can be much lighter.
  • This lighter operating system makes it much easier to build a gun with a floated barrel, which goes a long way to improving the mechanical accuracy of the gun.
  • Installation of a float tube also improves accuracy when shooting from improvised field positions.


probably pretty smart consideringthe rifle's poor desert/jungle performance.
Click to expand...
[Citation Needed]
 
I think that would be the first time anyone has placed the SA80 superior to anything (but I say this based only on reading).

I agree that a piston driven system is generally more reliable, but the question... is DI reliable enough?
Based on my experience, it definitely is.

One other thing I'll say for the AR - it's not only accurate, but it's generally easy to shoot well.
 
As I said, I do not own the AK, so I don't shoot it but like a few times a year. The jungle/desert performance is based on the numerous videos made about it (namely the AK vs m16 video by discovery) and the complaints of three friends who have been shipped to iraq during army service. All three had m16A4s, and all three had more than one occasion where the rifle jammed during enemy contact, all were caused either by sand or sustained fire causing the gun to fail to extract the casing or to feed a new one.

As for my own gun experience, my father is an avid gun collector who has multiple rifles, shotguns and pistols, including a Mini 14, and has good friend with an Ar-57 and 15 upper. I have shot multiple guns myself, from a SiG Mosquito to a 50 caliber rifled slug gun. I have had no formal training besides a gun safety course, but have witnessed complete disassembles, cleanings after sustained fire and detailed diagrams describing the different stages of firing. I saw AR-57 bump fired with 200 rounds (4 mags), then cleaned, and the chamber and bolt area were pretty dirty, even with handloaded rounds.

And its not as if i think the AR is the worst gun ever, just in an emergency I would rely on an AK or other piston operated gun
 
Well, I went out to the range today with family - took my AR, my sister and future brother and fiance brought their Bulgarian and Russian AK-74s, and my dad brought his SKS.

And wouldn't you know it, everyone one of them had at least one crap out. Were all the planets in alignment today or something? :uhoh: :confused:

The only guns that didn't mess up were the revolvers. :neener:
 
I have not shot a mini in quite a few years but never had a problem with it being reliable. acuracy was ok but did not try to make it do something it was not designed to do.

the ak well have not shot the 74 type but I would think somebody who knew what they were doing would do fine with one and if they are as reliable as the 47 its should be a fine weapon. took a 47 to a rifle match one time for kicks and took 3rd out of almost 40 shooters. No match rifles allowed and open sites only. we shot at 100,200 and 300 in standing sitting and prone. IT was the only ak there that day.

Now the ar15 is a ok weapon and I guess most of us are more used to it than the other two listed. I would rate it better than the other two and not because of reliability. just because of the platforms you can chose from. barrels, target, varmit or what ever and the bullet choices are pretty endless. And it certain cases have been know to shoot accuratly even without a scope ha! ha! ha!

do not own a video game and have never been in the military or on a police department or taken any classes to learn to shoot better either. just giving opinions from what I have personally experienced thats all. and we all know what a opinions worth LOL.
 
I own a Arsenal Saiga SGL21, and a DPMS AR-10 (Ok, not an AR-15, but close). My experience with both has been superb. The AR-10 does shoot more accurately then the AK from a bench. So in terms of absolute accuracy the AR wins. I have been able to pair it down to about 1.5 MOA with factory ammunition. A hand-loading set up is down stairs, but lacking powder, primers, and bullets for the 500 or so piece of brass that I have saved up. My Saiga's best has been 3 MOA with brown bear HP, although some quality hand-loads may shrink that down. Russian ammunition seems to be loaded to a 3-4 MOA standard.

However, from field expedient and standing positions, I am getting roughly the same accuracy from the two. About 3 MOA at 100 yards. Firing from a supported position versus a 12oz Coke bottle at 100 yards, I am getting about the same hit-probability from both rifles.

Where I find that the AR shines is in balance. I do think that an AR has a better balance to it than the AK. The AK is slightly nose-heavy, and becomes very nose heavy when I mount optics on it using the side rail. holding up 11-12lb almost exclusively with your weak-hand is not fun. In contrast, my AR balances nicely over my dominant hand with any type of optics mounted. That said, an AR is also dirtier and more difficult to clean because of the more enclosed receiver and the many small spaces for crud to hide in. Ergonomics on the AR are also superior from a sporting perspective.

Now, for a TEOTWAKI gun, I think the AK platform is better. The current Russian 7.62 and 5.45 are both designed to quickly and violently tumble, like the British .303, and induce quite a bit of damage. Accuracy is enough to deliver accurate fire on man-sized targets to 300 yards, and as the Military has pointed out since WW1, 98%+ of engagements happen under 300 yards, and most successful engagements under 100 or 150 yards. By successful, I refer to enemy casualties generated, rather than shooting at each other for a few minutes and parting ways.

As for the OP's question, in terms of wounding the 5.56 and 5.45 are both similar enough. The accuracy of the AR platform is better (But, M193 is loaded to about 2.5 MOA), but at a slight disadvantage to reliability. A good, chrome lined 5.45 AK is more reliable, at the expense of some accuracy (Surplus 5.45 seems to shoot 2.5-3 MOA), and worse ergonomics. From my experience, the AK can be made to run within a fraction of a second of an AR. It does not require any more training then it does to run an AR quickly, contrary to opinion. The main hinderer to AR shooters in running an AK quickly is the training on running an AR quickly and trying to run an AK like an AR. Each has its own manual of arms, and takes about equally long to learn and become proficient in each. The AR manual of arms is simply easier to figure out without anyone showing you. Iron sights and optics options are better on the AR-15, but you can get some extremely durable, good quality military surplus scopes for the AK for a little more then .22lr scopes/entry level center-fire scopes. Picatini rail adapters are available that use the side rail, or after-market options such as the dog-leg rail. Under field conditions, cyclic rate of fire for both firearms is the same.

In the end, I would say that its a personal choice. A top of the line AK made on the same production lines as a mil-spec AK can be had for as little as $500 (with some elbow grease), whereas a AR that meets most/all MIL-STD runs for $900 and waaay up. If you take care of them, both will be nearly equally reliable, and both will be more then accurate enough for practical shooting. Choose what you like, and learn to shoot it well.
 
AR.

Typically more accurate, easy to find parts for, easy to work on, modular, very reliable (if you purchase a no BS unit with top quality parts). Other considerations to take into account aside from the inherent virtues of the AR platform, are easier mounting of optics, far superior iron sights in stock form, excellent ergonomics and easy to shoot fairly well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
AK-47 vs AK-74 . Thoughts or opinions anyone ?
Replies
21
Views
2K
wford
W
J
  • Locked
Why are AK 74s not more popular???
2
Replies
44
Views
5K
nathan
N
L
  • Locked
  • Poll
Ak vs. Mini 14
Replies
14
Views
877
nalioth
N
X
  • Locked
Saiga Ak 74 vs AR 15
2 3
Replies
73
Views
3K
ugaarguy
ugaarguy
B
  • Locked
AK in 223 or Mini-14?
2
Replies
40
Views
2K
JustinJ
J
Back
Top