The AK-47 vs the AR-15

[Transnapastain]

Are we getting off topic again?

Just a bit. Sorry. I can't resist hoisting idiots.

If we don't want the thread closed down by those evil mods, I'd encourage people to not call their fellow posters idiots, especially when I know a poster knows better.

You can not resist shutting down incorrect arguments, perhaps?

[Gun Manufacturers]

Because that's the purpose for which a gun is built, right? And what are the targets? Substitution for a life.

Most of these targets do not substitute for a life.

http://gametargets.com/

[Moriala]

I love the AR-15, but I also love the AN-94 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Rifle_AN-94.jpg.

AN-94
Russian Assault Rifle
Uses 5.45 x 39mm ammo
In use in the Russian Spetsnaz, and elements of the Russian Police and Russian Army from 1997-Present
Produced from 1994-Present
Gas-Operated
Designed from 1980-1994
Longest range: 700 m

[The Orson Empire]

Well they are both used to kill and maim other Human beings, and they are both pretty good at doing it, so there really isn't a contest.

[Hornesia]

(Image)

thats a belgium boomstick
you expect BELGIANS to make proper guns? christ how uneducated do you have to be

FN Herstal. Your argument is invalid.

[Gun Manufacturers]

m1 carbine is shorter version of m1 garand

Not really since it fires a different round.

Also, there's the external box magazine of the M1 Carbine vs the en-bloc clip inserted into the internal magazine of the M-1 Garand.

[Premislyd]

Not really since it fires a different round.

Also, there's the external box magazine of the M1 Carbine vs the en-bloc clip inserted into the internal magazine of the M-1 Garand.

The prototype M1 Garand featured a box magazine

so...

[San-Silvacian]

Also, there's the external box magazine of the M1 Carbine vs the en-bloc clip inserted into the internal magazine of the M-1 Garand.

The prototype M1 Garand featured a box magazine

so...

And various prototypes during WW2 featured magazines.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Also, there's the external box magazine of the M1 Carbine vs the en-bloc clip inserted into the internal magazine of the M-1 Garand.

The prototype M1 Garand featured a box magazine

so...

So does the Beretta BM-59 (which is based off a modified Garand), but production Garands don't have a box magazine. None of that matters though, because the M-1 Carbine receiver is not the same as the Garand receiver. In fact, they only share 1 part, and that's one of the buttplate screws.

[Spreewerke]

m1 garand is varaint of needle rifle because self-contained cartridge




Speaking from personal experience, the Vz has always shown up all my colleagues AKs, save one, a pre-ban Hungarian AKMS. The Vz 58 is lighter than any AK I've ever shot or handled. This includes Arsenals, I.O., Century, and TGI AKs. I would interested to know which kind of AK you own and whether or not you have any experience with the Vz.[/quote

Oh look, an attempted to discredit me, how pleasant.

Not an attempt to discredit you, merely trying to understand your viewpoint. All companies have slight differences in the AK's they put out, build quality, furniture material, barrel specs, etc.

For example the WASR 10/63, my first AK type rifle, is far from the perfect AK. It is, however, a decent build with a good quality chrome lined barrel. I have found it to be just what it is, a basic AK for a good price.

Now, the Arsenal SLR-107CR is what the WASR could be. It's a high quality build with a Bulgarian receiver and and barrel. I've found it more accurate than the WASR and smoother when operating. It's got a nice finish the WASR doesn't have and comfortable polymer furniture. It's all in all a great gun.

Now the Vz 2008, nothing special eh? High quality milled receiver, nice chrome lined barrel, short stroke piston system, AK type sights (which I like), better furniture than the WASR (I've always found it more comfortable), plus the bolt hold open capability. Just an overall great gun, superior (in my opinion) to the AK in every way.

Your experience may have been completely different than mine.

The SLR-107CR is just an AKM internally with Bulgarian spec. notAK-100-series furniture and barrel fixtures.

I love the AR-15, but I also love the AN-94 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Rifle_AN-94.jpg.

AN-94
Russian Assault Rifle
Uses 5.45 x 39mm ammo
In use in the Russian Spetsnaz, and elements of the Russian Police and Russian Army from 1997-Present
Produced from 1994-Present
Gas-Operated
Designed from 1980-1994
Longest range: 700 m

I would hesitate to say the AN-94 is truly an AK variant since it does just about everything differently. It's heavily AK-based, but its internals are way different.

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/2416 ... pe1gl3.jpg

[New Maldorainia]

Also, there's the external box magazine of the M1 Carbine vs the en-bloc clip inserted into the internal magazine of the M-1 Garand.

The prototype M1 Garand featured a box magazine

so...

Politics for that one.

[Divair]

Other: G36C.

[Greed and Death]

Ar-15, I take accuracy over less maintenance of the AK-47.

[Holy Empire of Avalon]

So which one is better? They both have their pros and cons, and both are readily available, with the AK being more easily found since it and its knock offs have spread throughout the world. And no by AR, I even mean the civilian version, not just the M-16 version used by the U.S. military and others.

The AR-15 in the market is very unique. Currently most versions that can be bought have interchangeable parts that can make it use a variety of ammo sizes. Currently they have kits that can help it fire anything from a .22 long rifle (LR), to the regular 5.56 NATO style rounds, and even the 7.62 rounds, with many other calibers also found. It also has a major advantage by just how many companies actually make a variation of the weapon, with the prices ranging greatly depending on the maker.

Next up we have the ever popular AK-47. It comes firing the popular 7.62 round. There are also many knock offs of the weapon made in other countries. It is a reliable weapon that does not break down easily. It is not as accurate, but it has greater muzzle range then the AR. It also tends to be much more affordable as there were just so many made at a time.

Website with interesting side by side comparison

Personally I would go with the AR because of the ability to customize it easily to my tastes. How about others, which do you think is best? (Note: Not a gun control thread, feel free to share why you would not by it, but stay on topic please).

Based off the study they have done I certainly will choose the AR, but also because I personally like the AR for mostly the same reason you do, the AR is very customizable and can be modified with parts made for it to fire any caliber round really. The AK in my regards could be a good weapon but it is just not my style gun.

[Lemanrussland]

Ar-15, I take accuracy over less maintenance of the AK-47.

The AR-15 is definitely more accurate than the AK pattern rifles (due to a variety of factors, like lack of a large gas piston, different cartridge (this is the big one, the AK-74 with it's light, high velocity cartridge is actually comparable to the AR-15) arguably better sights etc.), but it should be kept in mind that both of the rifles fire intermediate cartridges which are effective out to 300-500 meters, the AR-15 does not have a massive advantage over AK pattern rifles in that sense.

I prefer the AR-15 as well (mostly for the better ergonomics and better sights, I like mine for target shooting), but would you still prefer the AR-15 if spare parts, lubricant, and cleaning supplies were less available or not available at all? In those circumstances, I would definitely pick up an AK.

[New Maldorainia]

So which one is better? They both have their pros and cons, and both are readily available, with the AK being more easily found since it and its knock offs have spread throughout the world. And no by AR, I even mean the civilian version, not just the M-16 version used by the U.S. military and others.

The AR-15 in the market is very unique. Currently most versions that can be bought have interchangeable parts that can make it use a variety of ammo sizes. Currently they have kits that can help it fire anything from a .22 long rifle (LR), to the regular 5.56 NATO style rounds, and even the 7.62 rounds, with many other calibers also found. It also has a major advantage by just how many companies actually make a variation of the weapon, with the prices ranging greatly depending on the maker.

Next up we have the ever popular AK-47. It comes firing the popular 7.62 round. There are also many knock offs of the weapon made in other countries. It is a reliable weapon that does not break down easily. It is not as accurate, but it has greater muzzle range then the AR. It also tends to be much more affordable as there were just so many made at a time.

Website with interesting side by side comparison

Personally I would go with the AR because of the ability to customize it easily to my tastes. How about others, which do you think is best? (Note: Not a gun control thread, feel free to share why you would not by it, but stay on topic please).

Based off the study they have done I certainly will choose the AR, but also because I personally like the AR for mostly the same reason you do, the AR is very customizable and can be modified with parts made for it to fire any caliber round really. The AK in my regards could be a good weapon but it is just not my style gun.

Customization is good so it fits perfectly for the one using it.

[Holy Empire of Avalon]

Based off the study they have done I certainly will choose the AR, but also because I personally like the AR for mostly the same reason you do, the AR is very customizable and can be modified with parts made for it to fire any caliber round really. The AK in my regards could be a good weapon but it is just not my style gun.

Customization is good so it fits perfectly for the one using it.

Plus after watching the Sons of Guns episode on it I know for a fact the ones they made are water proof and pretty resistant to dirt, so I would definitely wield a Red Jacket AR-15 if I could have any gun I wanted in a fight, because really you could punish that thing with any environment and it would be pretty damn dependable; plus I know the old AKs jammed up I don't know if they fixed that or not now but I imagine they would have.

[Spreewerke]

Customization is good so it fits perfectly for the one using it.

Plus after watching the Sons of Guns episode on it I know for a fact the ones they made are water proof and pretty resistant to dirt, so I would definitely wield a Red Jacket AR-15 if I could have any gun I wanted in a fight, because really you could punish that thing with any environment and it would be pretty damn dependable;

I wouldn't.

plus I know the old AKs jammed up I don't know if they fixed that or not now but I imagine they would have.

wat

[Holy Empire of Avalon]

Plus after watching the Sons of Guns episode on it I know for a fact the ones they made are water proof and pretty resistant to dirt, so I would definitely wield a Red Jacket AR-15 if I could have any gun I wanted in a fight, because really you could punish that thing with any environment and it would be pretty damn dependable;

I wouldn't.

plus I know the old AKs jammed up I don't know if they fixed that or not now but I imagine they would have.

wat

Well obviously the first part is your own personal option which is perfectly fine we all have different choices in guns
and as for the second part, I know back in the 70's I believe, the AKs every once in awhile would jam up

[Spreewerke]

I wouldn't.



wat

Well obviously the first part is your own personal option which is perfectly fine we all have different choices in guns
and as for the second part, I know back in the 70's I believe, the AKs every once in awhile would jam up

No, the first part is the fact it's Red Jacket Firearms. An AR-15 BCM with a FailZero bolt? Yeah, I'd operate that in operations operationally. Something Red Jacket built? I'll take my chances elsewhere.

As for the AKs jamming back in the '70s? No. All of the nos.

[Puzikas]

I wouldn't.



wat

Well obviously the first part is your own personal option which is perfectly fine we all have different choices in guns
and as for the second part, I know back in the 70's I believe, the AKs every once in awhile would jam up

Nope.

By the 1950s the Kalashnikov family had already proven itself to be a very reliable rifle. In 1970 it was no different. The entire system in its service life has never once been called "unreliable" by any professional. In fact, this is literately the first time I have ever heard a person seriously call the Kalashnikov system unreliable in a serious way, and I've been using them for 22 years now.

My father carried an AKS-74 in Afghanistan. He never had an issue with it.

You MUST be thinking of the M16 in Vietnam, that is literally the only thing I could think of that you might be thinking of.

[Paddy O Fernature]

Jesus Christ.. Did someone actually say they would trust their life with a RJF?

Id rather take my chances with a Nambu pistol.

[Lemanrussland]

Well obviously the first part is your own personal option which is perfectly fine we all have different choices in guns
and as for the second part, I know back in the 70's I believe, the AKs every once in awhile would jam up

Nope.

By the 1950s the Kalashnikov family had already proven itself to be a very reliable rifle. In 1970 it was no different. The entire system in its service life has never once been called "unreliable" by any professional. In fact, this is literately the first time I have ever heard a person seriously call the Kalashnikov system unreliable in a serious way, and I've been using them for 22 years now.

My father carried an AKS-74 in Afghanistan. He never had an issue with it.

You MUST be thinking of the M16 in Vietnam, that is literally the only thing I could think of that you might be thinking of.

You can have failures by using bad magazines (usually shitty knock off ones without a proper machined steel top to protect against the feeding lip getting damaged) or bad ammunition (primer failures and such). The action itself is extremely reliable, though.

[Spreewerke]

Nope.

By the 1950s the Kalashnikov family had already proven itself to be a very reliable rifle. In 1970 it was no different. The entire system in its service life has never once been called "unreliable" by any professional. In fact, this is literately the first time I have ever heard a person seriously call the Kalashnikov system unreliable in a serious way, and I've been using them for 22 years now.

My father carried an AKS-74 in Afghanistan. He never had an issue with it.

You MUST be thinking of the M16 in Vietnam, that is literally the only thing I could think of that you might be thinking of.

You can have failures by using bad magazines (usually shitty knock off ones without a proper machined steel top) or bad ammunition (primer failures and such). The action itself is extremely reliable, though.

...are you saying magazine failures with military-issued AK magazines were something of a concern?

My SGL 21-94 has used everything from brand-new Izhmash-made five-round magazines to "found in a ditch with a corpse or two" magazines retrieved from Serbian battlefields. Of all of my magazines, I have never had a single malfunction except for one magazine that does not properly feed... because its sides are crushed to where the follower won't move beyond a certain point. So long as it's made in an actual military plant (read: not America), it will work, and it will work well. I have East German, Polish, Albanian, Chinese, Yugoslavian, Bosnian, Romanian, and Hungarian magazines. All made in different machine shops, all equally 100% reliable. As for bad ammunition? That's an easy fix: cycle the bolt, clear the dud, insert live cartridge, fire.

EDIT TO ADD: Jams are also insanely infrequent due to the AK mag. follower being anti-tilt from the get-go.

[Puzikas]

Nope.

By the 1950s the Kalashnikov family had already proven itself to be a very reliable rifle. In 1970 it was no different. The entire system in its service life has never once been called "unreliable" by any professional. In fact, this is literately the first time I have ever heard a person seriously call the Kalashnikov system unreliable in a serious way, and I've been using them for 22 years now.

My father carried an AKS-74 in Afghanistan. He never had an issue with it.

You MUST be thinking of the M16 in Vietnam, that is literally the only thing I could think of that you might be thinking of.

You can have failures by using bad magazines (usually shitty knock off ones without a proper machined steel top) or bad ammunition (primer failures and such). The action itself is extremely reliable, though.

Ammunition and magazines are very reliable too. I have ammunition from 1972 made in Russia right now, in fact I just shot 600 rounds of it this week. I've also had exactly one bad magazine, and that magazine was run over by a T-80 tank. I haven't known many other people who have had bad magazines, and those who I HAVE known have had out of spec non-Russian magazines, generally speaking.

More over, I have had far more issues with USGI steel magazine and Magpul P-MAGS than I have had with any one AK magazine.