G3 or AK47

[Curious Brit]

I lived and worked in Kenya for a few years and have been back to visit many times. Police are armed with either an H & K G3 or an AK-47 (or variation thereof). Now having never even handled either let alone fired them I'd like to ask those who have, the pros and cons of each. As for context, general patrol vehicle and foot, sitting around at check points, sat or stood outside banks.
As a secondary question which of the two do you prefer.

 

[FL-NC]

Both rifles are very different from each other, yet I don't care for either of them. Neither are very accurate or easy to even zero (sights aren't very user friendly) and both have challenges with things like mounting optics and other accessories. Of the 2, I would prefer the AK only because it is lighter and has less felt recoil.

 

[jdc1244]

I have and enjoy shooting both.

Both are reliable and ruggedly built, both easy to disassemble and maintain.

As noted they’re not the most accurate, but are accurate enough for casual range time; reloaders tend to not like G3s because they're hard on spent shells.

 

[wiscoaster]

The pros are they're both proven and reliable. I'd say it boils down to carrying a heavier load to shoot a heavier bullet a greater distance versus carrying a lighter load and shooting a lighter bullet a shorter distance. I have an AK-47 variant, and I have a FAL variant (G3's main battle rifle equivalent), and I couldn't give an opinion on which I'd prefer because I'm comparing apples and oranges. I suppose if you had to pick one regardless it would be the AK, strictly from a cost perspective. Because the con would be the acquisition and operating cost of the G3 platform.

 

[JCooperfan1911]

The AK, even a milled variant, will be lighter. Stamped, further still.

An AK is more compact than the G3 platform.

I’d rather pack an AK for those tasks, but the G3 is a capable and potent rifle.

 

[trackskippy]

Ive owned the civilian versions of both, and have shot the military versions of both as well. As FL-NC mentioned, they are two fairly different guns, with the G3 using a full sized rifle cartridge, and the AK an intermediate. As you would expect, the G3 has a bit heavier recoil, but neither are bad if you understand how to shoot a rifle.

With a little familiarization and experience with the guns, both are easy to work and shoot, although Id give the AK the edge there, overall. Im leaving the full auto part of both out of this, as that is another aspect that requires a bit more work on your part, and really isnt of much benefit if you dont understand it and know what to do with it.

If you're talking Africa, and large animals possibly being an issue, the G3 would really be the better choice of the two there.

Ive found both to be accurate, with the G3 generally being the more accurate of the two. You do need a specific tool for the G3 to get it zeroed, but once you do, you dont really need to mess with it again. You need some sort of tool for the AK's as well, but they are generally a lot easier to find.

I always thought the HK type iron sight system was about the best for a combat type rifle, and once you understand them, they make sense and are very easy to use.

The AK has your basic military/hunting type sights, and if you're familiar with them, they are pretty much like any of the others.

Both are capable of good accuracy if you're a capable shooter.

The HK has a good system for mounting different optics and it is on/off/on zero repeatable as long as your using proper mounts.

The AK has a number of different mounts available, and something like the Ultimak with a good red dot is one of the better choices. With the Ultimak, the sight is mounted low and forward, out of the way of both handling and your peripheral vision, and with a low ring on the red dot, you can cowitness your dot with the iron sights.

There are a lot of options and makers for the AK's side rail, assuming it has one, and there are a lot of options there. Ive just never been a fan of that type of mount.

Youre best bet is to try and get ahold of each and actually shoot them a bit until you figure them out and understand them. Just talking about them isnt really going to do you much good. As with anything, it takes time and work. Having a good, well rounded and solid rifle shooting background with either is going to be a necessity. If you've only shot off a bench, you'll need to work or getting away from it.

Truthfully, if youre not physically fit, neither will be easy, but the AK will likely have the advantage there. Best thing is to try and stay fit, and/or get there if you aren't, no matter what you choose, as shooting in general, is a physical thing, and the better shape you're in, the easier everything about it will be. And keep in mind, the weight of the gun is just the gun, your added gear and mag carrier, etc, will add at least as much weight as the gun. Plan on humping and dealing with weight, no matter what you choose.

 

[CapnMac]

Based in a vehicle to haul all the supporting bits, the "308" (actually 7.62nato) G3 probably offers the most flexibility over a wide span of ranges. That G3 is capable of getting rounds out to 800m (whether the shooter can ID targets that far away is a separate issue).

Carried around on foot, with extra mags and the like, the AK in 7.62x39 gets the nod. Shorter, potentially handier. But, you are limited to 350-400m realistically (although you can lob rounds further, just far less precisely).

If there were hippos or buffalo about, my pick would be "neither."

 

[Slamfire]

I would go with the G3 for the 308 Win round. A 308 round is much more powerful, and the inherent accuracy of the G3 is much better than an AK47.



Very good rear sight, however the windage adjustment screw will only move the base when the lock screw is loosened (Phillips head screw). And then, the windage adjustment is not precise, very loosey goosey movement to the base. Which is why I painted that line, so I could find zero again if the lock screw got loose.



I paid a gunsmith to do a trigger job, and this trigger, after the first stage takeup, is as crisp as a match trigger.



I consider the retarded, or delayed blowback bolt a marvel of engineering.









This gun works by floating the upper 2/3 of the case from the chamber walls.





Gas lubrication breaks the friction between case and chamber, but it is function critical to keep the flutes clean, and not use ammunition that will clog the flutes



PTR had a long list of surplus ammunition that caused their rifles to choke. Tar sealant was one of those things that clogged chamber flutes. So make sure you buy a chamber brush, and keep that chamber clean!

PTR puts on match grade barrels, with ball ammunition, it will hold the black at 200 yards. It is more accurate and more powerful than the AK 47.





That 5V target, that was used in the M1903, M1 Garand days. All you had to do was hit the black, and you got the highest score possible. Somewhere before the 1960's the V was added to break scores. Holding the black was all an American service rifle was expected to do, and be combat issue.

At least in the US you can buy all sorts of G3 stocks, optical sight arrangements, etc. An individual can really trick the rifle out.

 

[bannockburn]

I have had both and probably would go with the AK 47 over the G3 (mine were an Hungarian SA 85M and an HK91). Didn't care for the ergonomics of the HK, as the butt stock felt like it was a little on the short side (and I really don't have long arms). Wasn't a big fan of the rear sight set-up, and the fluted chamber was hard on brass. I will say that the HK had the edge in accuracy and distance over the AK. Neither gun had all that great of a trigger.

Liked the slightly lighter weight of the AK47, less recoil with the 7.62x39 round, the compactness of the underfolder stock, and the overall reliability of the gun. Accuracy was somewhat less and at shorter distances compared to the HK. If I had to hump through the boonies all day long I would go with the AK.

 

[shoobe01]

Still need more context mostly. Like, AK series are mostly atrocious for getting red dots to work. Will be weird and likely hard to find there and/or very very high so ergonomically iffy. Plenty of rails for the forearm that are even issued, but that doesn't solve the sighting issues.

Stocks are mediocre to terrible. Again, depends if you can get aftermarket parts or for the (notional?) job, if allowed to modify it or it's just off the rack.

G3 is heavier and longer, but isn't horrible to carry all day, easy to get decent slings. Decent ergonomics to start with, easy to get mounts for scopes/sights. There are also shorter ones. The G3K was pretty broadly issued to some nations but seems to not be in Kenya. NOT talking the fun-but-fake for US market HK51, but the G3K, with a 12.5" barrel, HK33 handguards. Plenty of people have done good work of late with SCAR-H with barrels that short, so for combat ranges (out to 300 yds at least) no regrets if you could get one of those.

Plenty of aftermarket rails and even some new snazzy stocks for G3 also, again actually issued items I don't mean TAPCO level of stuff.

Also would depend a lot on what I have to do with it. How far do I need to engage as a guard? Are vehicle attacks likely, are the likely assailants to be armored, etc?

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

If I had to grab one and jump out a window....it would be the AK.

 

[jonnyc]

Short to medium range general tasks...AK. Medium to longer range specific tasking...G3. A real apples/oranges question.

 

[AK Hunter]

The AK with a folding stock will be much easier to get in & out of vehicles. If you have to carry an H&K G3 very far with ammo it will be a lot lighter to carry the AK.

 

[amprecon]

I've owned a PTR-91, twice. I bought my first SLR-95 in 1999, I still have it and sold a PTR-91 to get another SLR-95. Get a good AK, put an ULTIMAK tube/rail on it, add a red dot and your good to go. I prefer 20-round mags to the 30-rounders.
The ergo's on the PTR sucked, like working the safety, the trigger sucked, mag release sucked and I could never get used to the charging handle location. However, it was accurate and recoil wasn't bad for a .308. It was hard on brass and flung them a ways. The AK is smaller, lighter, handier and ammo is pretty prolific and cheaper.

 

[JCooperfan1911]

Short to medium range general tasks...AK. Medium to longer range specific tasking...G3. A real apples/oranges question.

Not really.

Both were designed as general issue service rifles for the masses. The G3 followed the Western large caliber battle rifle philosophy, the AK the intermediate assault rifle design that would later supplant the battle rifles. But they were meant for the same role, used by the same groups of people, generally issued with iron sights only, etc.

The whole apples and oranges trope is tired and overused in gun discussions.

 

[jonnyc]

"The whole apples and oranges trope is tired and overused in gun discussions."

Unless it's true and relevant. Can you achieve any kind of accuracy with an AK at 800 yards? Can you handle/manage a G3 on FA at 100 yards? They may have been designed for the same troops, but they have different capabilities and strengths.The designers and proponents of the 7.62x51 Nato round could have chosen any of the intermediate rounds presented to them, but they didn't. They were proven wrong with the quick demise of the FA switch on M14s and the rifle's short life span.

 

[PzGren]

The HK G3 was my service rifle and sniper rifles that were selected for accuracy had the 4x24 Hensoldt mounted and could hold MOA without a problem. The open sighted guns still held the ten ring at 250 meters in capable hands during the state matches. Slamfire posted a photo of the rear sight in post #8 that is not what the HK G3 sight looks like at all and I guess that the different manufacturers of HK G3 clones have different quality levels, that lead to different accuracy. While the accuracy of AKs also depend on manufacturer and tolerances, I found them less accurate and the sights harder for accurate shots during daylight. An East German AK74 with issued AKN Zeiss scope is a different story.

 

[wiscoaster]

If I had to grab one and jump out a window....it would be the AK.

I'd hate to have to jump out a window holding either .308 battle rifle.

 

[jmorris]

If I needed to use one to I’d probably pick the G3 if I just had to carry one I’d pick the AK.

 

[Conelrad]

Rifle ergonomics are like underwear, you go with what feels right.

My best advice: Try it before you buy it.

 

[citizenconn]

Rifle ergonomics are like underwear, you go with what feels right.

My best advice: Try it before you buy it.

I hope you mean the guns and not the other. Otherwise, ewwwwww.

 

[PzGren]

I'd hate to have to jump out a window holding either .308 battle rifle.

Well, at Hammelburg in house-to-house fighting drills we had to do just that and it is the reason why I am not an absolute opponent of the HK G36, it is a Mattel gun in comparison. It isn't fun when someone throws the G3 down for you and you have to catch it, either. Climbing a tree with a G3 in sniper school wasn't for the guys that were not really physical fit. They washed out quickly.

 

[derek45]

As a Kenyan soldier or policeman, if given a choice, I would pick the lightest one in the armory.

(An M4 is a much better choice)

Both are rugged, reliable, heavy, heavy ammo, old school simple rifles.

G3 rear sight is unusual for Americans, but this video makes some sense out of it.

G3 to 500Yards
Fast Fwd to about 4;50mins to skip the goofy intro...


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AK rifles have a really short sight radius, fast to acquire, but not very precise, better for assaults' and close range urban stuff.

 

[d2wing]

G3 is a better and more powerful by far and more accurate rifle. It is heavy but an AK is heavy for it's power level which is pretty low. The AK is designed for very short range automatic fire. Just the situation I would hate to be in. I have hunted with them but while the H3 is heavier it is better suited to anything I would use it for.

 

[mshootnit]

I lived and worked in Kenya for a few years and have been back to visit many times. Police are armed with either an H & K G3 or an AK-47 (or variation thereof). Now having never even handled either let alone fired them I'd like to ask those who have, the pros and cons of each. As for context, general patrol vehicle and foot, sitting around at check points, sat or stood outside banks.
As a secondary question which of the two do you prefer.

Well the G3 is a LOT heavier
A PTR91 is a "usually acceptable" copy of the spanish cetme. There are some slight variances from the HK. selector detent, rear sight, carrier, etc.