I don't get the need to push one or the other on these threads. The AR verses AK debate is so overdone.
I like AKs, and I like ARs. I also recognize that they both have their own characteristics. What I don't see is the need some have to push one or the other as the perfect platform.
I think I can say the following without defending myself considering the sheer number of posts that I've made on THR as an advocate of the AK.
If your priority for a rifle is high accuracy, the AK is NOT the platform you want to work from.
Now let me qualify that. I see lots of posts that say that the AK is "plenty accurate" for most uses. Yes, it is. But not all uses.
If the extent of your accuracy desire is torso at X yards, you are in like Flinn. It will do it. If, however, you want precise shot placement, it isn't the best choice.
And I've REALLY tried to make it so. Last year, I spent over $1,000 trying to make it so. What I ended up with was probably one of the most accurate AK platforms that one will encounter. On a good day with quality ammunition, it could hold 1.5 MOA at 100 yards. Great, right? Not really for $1,000 of work, and considering that I had to do the shooting in bench-rest conditions.
In practice out in the field, a precise shot from the AK project was a challenging ordeal. I had to really work the trigger creep to say on target. Because I used the side-rail optic mount, I found that it was impossible to switch from right-handed to left-handed if the shot demanded it.
And when I did take shots in the field, I never was happy with the shot placement.
Now, as I said... if I were just worrying about making a hit, I would be happy and the AK would do the job. However, I also hunt with my rifles. Simply hitting a deer is unacceptable to me. I strive to make clean, quick, and ethical kills. That means shot placement.
I've killed two deer with AKs. One was taken at 145 yards with the Saiga .308 and one was taken at 37 yards with a Polish Vector Arms 7.62x39.
The shot with the Saiga was approximately 4" off of where I aimed. Luckily, the deer still dropped, but I was taking a vitals shot and that much off could have easily moved the impact outside of the vitals to the point where I would be in for a long tracking.
Disturbed by the event, I benched the rifle that weekend to see what was going on. I never did get what I would call a group that I would be satisfied with in a hunting rifle. Because of that, I found myself passing on shots for the remainder of the season. I sold it the day after the season closed.
As for the shot with the Vector, I can't log any complaints. Granted, the shot was only 37 yards, but it did exactly what I needed it to do. I wanted to use the rifle as a "brush" gun on my trail stands where the shots would be close. For that I wanted a light rifle that was easy to maneuver and fast to aquire sights. I went with the Vector stock-bare-- no optics, standard leaf sight. Unlike some, I had no problems with my underfolding stock-- although I could see how it could have gotten snagged on clothing or such in the right conditions. A wood stock probably would have been a bit more comfortable.
On a running deer, the Vector placed the shot in what I would call an acceptable point and the rifle came to point quickly. I wouldn't have pushed this rifle as a hunting rifle much further than the distances involved in this hunt, but it performed as I wanted it to.
Now...
Every day, competitions are showing that it IS possible to have superbly accurate shots from the AR platform. Because of the ease of mounting optics and other peripherial alterations, the AR is easily adaptable to the role to which it is pressed. I particularly like that it is easier to mount optics directly over the center of the bore-- making it easier to shoot the rifle either handed.
The accuracy capabilities of the AR platform was what prompted me to shift into that direction in my efforts to build an accurate semi-auto rifle. My new project that is eating all my available funds is a 24" Stainless Fluted DPMS LR-308. As we speak, the Leupold Mark 4 3.5-10x40 M3 Illuminated TMR is on its way to my house. I fully expect this rifle to maintain sub-MOA performance.
So what does the increased accuracy capabilities cost me? Well, I'm sure that tighter tolerances will reduce the reliability to a degree. But I don't know. Over 22 years of owning EBRs, I've never gotten one so dirty that it would not function as expected. Hell, that even includes my first AR-- a OLYMPIC CAR-15 clone that I owned in high school. I shot buckets of bullets through that thing and never had a problem. I only sold it in order to fund my FIRST attempt at a precision EBR-- in the form of an HK-91 that I hoped to work into a PSGI clone. I was ahead of my time on that project and it failed due to the lack of aftermarket or easily accessible parts back in 1988.
My point to all of this is that different platforms have more or less inherent capabilities and potentials. If you just want a rifle to go bang, and hit torso at X yards, the AK will do that. It will do that filled with potting soil with a fern growing out of the side of the receiver.
But if you are wanting a rifle that you can push for greater accuracy, there are better options in the EBR world. For my actual and practical uses, I NEED my rifles to hold greater percision than I was able to squeeze out of an AK.
I may well get another AK in the future. I probably will.
However, at this time, I have benefited from having the confidence that my LR-308 and my M4-gery will hit exactly where I want it to hit when I want it to do so, and from a natural firing stance.
As of yet, I haven't experienced any reliability issues from the M4-gery and I have confidence in its dependability. I'll let you know on the LR-308. It's got a long road in front of it before it is in its final configuration and can be judged.
-- John
