AK-47 vs. AR-15

The story about the AK-47 in the mud probably came from "About Face: The Odyssey of an American Warrior" by Colonel David H. Hackworth. If I remember correctly, they found a dead VC in the mud. The body had obviously been there some weeks. Colonel Hackworth said something like "You guys want to see a real assault rifle?", picked it up and fired it.
If you haven't read the book, you should. "Warrior" is absolutely correct!
 
Ak's are sheet metal junk
7.62 is a slow a round
Get a Ruger Mini-30 and accessorize it if you must have a 7.62

The only place I would have an AK was someplace where AK's were everywhere (afghanistan, iraq, croatia, etc?)
Mostly to get the clips and ammo in an emergency situation

If price is the main concern
Get an AK
Even here in California I think you can get one for 300-500
 
Trent Rock said:
Ak's are sheet metal junk
Click to expand...

If they're junk, why are they recognized as some of the world's most durable rifles? :confused:

Easily recognized with its high front sights, large selector/safety switch on the right side and the long, curved banana magazine, this is the Soviet version with a conventional wooden buttstock. The AK-47 is a gas-operated, magazine-fed rifle which has a semiautomatic ROF of 40 rounds (effective range about 400 meters), increasing to 100 rounds on fully automatic (effective range about 300 meters). It has a 30 round detachable box magazine. Renowned for it's durability, the AK-47 is shorter and heavier than the M-16 but with a lower ROF and muzzle velocity.
Click to expand...

Source: http://www.vietnam-war.info/weapons/ak47_assault_rifle.php

Google "AK-47" and "durability" and you get hit after hit saying much the same thing.
 
Bernoulli said:
The story about the AK-47 in the mud probably came from "About Face: The Odyssey of an American Warrior" by Colonel David H. Hackworth. If I remember correctly, they found a dead VC in the mud. The body had obviously been there some weeks. Colonel Hackworth said something like "You guys want to see a real assault rifle?", picked it up and fired it.
If you haven't read the book, you should. "Warrior" is absolutely correct!
Click to expand...

Big difference between an AK being held by a body the is partially covered with mud for a couple of weeks and buried in mud for a year. I can buy the above story but the year thing?...Nope.

Trent...I disagree with the AK being junk...far from it, the AK is a good, sturdy weapon. I just don't feel it is the equal of the AR design. Given a choice however I would prefer the AK over the Ruger.
 
Trent Rock said:
Get a Ruger Mini-30 and accessorize it if you must have a 7.62
Click to expand...

BAD idea !

I had one and found three major problems with it:

1) Reliable cap mags were non-existent. Perhaps that's changed, but look into it first.

2) The Mini-30 did NOT like the hard primers of the surplus ammo. It went "click" 2-3 times per 30 rds.

3) If you think the Mini-14 is inaccurate, then you ain't seen nothin' til you try to hit with the Mini-30 !

I'll keep my AK as my "go-to" 7.62x39 piece.

.
 
Bernoulli said:
The story about the AK-47 in the mud probably came from "About Face: The Odyssey of an American Warrior" by Colonel David H. Hackworth. If I remember correctly, they found a dead VC in the mud. The body had obviously been there some weeks. Colonel Hackworth said something like "You guys want to see a real assault rifle?", picked it up and fired it.If you haven't read the book, you should. "Warrior" is absolutely correct!
Click to expand...

+1:thumbup:That is dead on right!I've read so many books rgarding the subject,it's easy to get them mixed up.Thanks for the correction:)

Sorry I exaggerated saying a year,when it was obviously weeks.
 
I'd have to go with the AR simply because I was trained to use it in the military and I have confidence in the weapon and my ability to use it. The AK is a fine weapon I'm sure just not one I am familiar withuse wise.
 
I like 'em both, but probably prefer the simplicity and apparent reliability/durability of the AK-47.


march-2.jpg


march-3.jpg
 
powernoodle said:
I like 'em both, but probably prefer the simplicity and apparent reliability/durability of the AK-47.


march-2.jpg


march-3.jpg
Click to expand...


powernoodle,+1:thumbup:I like the aesthetics of the top one(2nd pic).The way the wood & the steel look together.Great pics:)
 
History Channel did an AK vs. AR comparison.

According to various experts on the show, and Viet Nam era vets, the AR has the advantage in range, accuracy, and weight.

The AK has the advantage in penetration through cover (even small trees), sturdiness, and reliability.

I have virtually no experience with either rifle, but the simplicity of operation and manual of arms, based on what was on the show, would make me lean towards the AK.

One expert was quoted as saying in Afghanistan it was not uncommon to for the fighters there to pull some knotted bootlaces dipped in motor oil through the barrel of the AK to clean it out. That was good enough to get the AK ready to use.
 
I haven’t touched an AK in years so I went and looked this up but to clean it in the field you would remove the top cover, recoil spring, bolt carrier, and maybe remove the bolt from the bolt carrier. I don’t see why you would need to remove the upper hand guard.
So four parts minimum and five at the most.

For the AR to field strip it you would take out the charging handle, and the bolt carrier. We never took the bolt carrier apart in the field but if you did that would be a firing pin, cam, bolt, and a cotter pin. If you wanted to be real picky you could take out the buffer and recoil spring. There was a very good reason to not take that stuff apart though, it didnt need it.

So two parts minimum, or nine max.

Both guns have been out for a long time and are simple and reliable. Both will function with little maintenance and a little or even a lot of oil. Also the AR is not near as fragile as folks make it out to be.
 
I've used both.

The AR is, as many have noted, far more accurate. It also seems to jam more often than the AK. And, I think the AK is more reliable in sand and mud.

Otherwise, go with the AR in .223 if you're looking for recreational shooting. 7.62 gets a tad expensive and, when you're sweeping up 100 or so shells in your stand, you'll know what I mean. :)
 
For the same price, I'd get the AR15.

A target rifle better suits my current needs, and the AR15 makes a better target rifle than the AK.

The whole "Your AR15 will jam if it gets full of zombie guts, and I use zombie guts to lube my AK!" arguement is tiresome. I'm so sick of it. I don't even care anymore.

Might as well fire up a "Glock vs 1911" thread.
 
SkinnyJoe said:
Who makes the bottom two?
Click to expand...

The middle AK is a Romanian WASR-10, and I spray painted the furniture flat black. Its one of the typical cheapy AK's that was probably made by a retarded monkey with a ball peen hammer. Same gun as the top AK, only with spray painted wood.

The bottom AK was made by Arsenal in Nevada. Its nicer, and the monkey that made it wasn't retarded. Its about twice as spendy as the cheapy Romanian AKs. It has plastic furniture.

:thumbup:
 
Trent Rock said:
Ak's are sheet metal junk
7.62 is a slow a round
Get a Ruger Mini-30 and accessorize it if you must have a 7.62

The only place I would have an AK was someplace where AK's were everywhere (afghanistan, iraq, croatia, etc?)
Mostly to get the clips and ammo in an emergency situation

If price is the main concern
Get an AK
Even here in California I think you can get one for 300-500
Click to expand...

a ruger m ini 30 LOL? if a AKM is junk, a mini 30 is "junkier".

i'm no big fan of the ruger mini series of rifles (yes i have one) the accesories are expensive, no one that i know of makes decent hicaps for a mini 30 at any price, but most telling imho is while the AKM is the most widely used combat rifle in the world, adapted by only god knows how many countries armed forces, while the mini has been adapted by exactly "zero" countries armed forces.
 
Last edited:
A rifle not yet mentioned is the Czech VZ58. It uses a short-stroke piston that is very similar to (some say inspired) the latest tacticool AR modification - replacing the direct gas impingement system with a piston. It fires 7.62x39. It has a milled steel receiver. It uses proprietary lightweight aluminum mags. More accurate than an AK in its caliber, and VERY compact when folded.

Still in service with the Czech military today. Light in weight, heavy in quality. Available as a completed rifle or a parts kit, receiver, and 922r parts for the do-it-yourselfer with a shop press.

vz58v.jpg


vz58p.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top