AK-47 vs. AR-15

TR Graham said:
If you are gonna' shoot PAPER, get an AR.

If you are gonna' shoot PEOPLE, get an AK.

TR Graham
The Glocksmith
Click to expand...

Of course if you want to do both get an M-4...lol. Anyone who thinks the 5.56 round doesn't do it's job is just plain silly. I wouldn't want to get shot with either. The AR platform performs fine and is reliable.

I know everyone says the AK must be better, look at all the countries that use it. Think about that. If you are a third world country and shopping around for a rifle do you buy something that is hard to acquire, difficult (if not impossible) to manufacture yourself, and requires training to use? Of course not...you go with what can be produce cheaply and used by people who have never held a gun before. One that can be made in a cooking pot factory or even made using a coal forge by hand. The AR needs advanced technology to make, something many countries that use the AK don't possess. Add to that the US has not given the rifle away by the millions to communist sympathizers and countries that support communism and it is obvious why the AK is in use in more countries. It is a matter of availability. not a matter of being a better battle rifle.
 
Ah, but we are giving it to the Iraqi army, millions of fanatics in the Philippines, the PLO (wonderful people) and the variants our allies use are making their way into the hands of countless scumbags, which is good. I'd rather have a .223 in the hands of an untrained fool than a 30. caliber.

And it's not a question of country, but design. The AK is a better battle rifle because it's designed to outperform the environment and the soldier.

The AR is fantastic for what it was initiallt designed for. Air Force police and security. There's a reason the SF boys are going to the SCAR platform, and that's gas piston, primarily. If they were realistic about it they'd go with a SCAR in 7.63x39.

Or they could mod some AK's and they'd be golden.
 
i'm not sure that an AKM or AK74 wouldnt be a better std issue rifle for the US armed forces with the M4 & M16 going to more dedicated combat troops who would be more likely to maintain it, FWIW i have heard of problems with 5.56 especially in the M4 as far as lethality, something ya never hear about 7.62X39 or 5.45X39 for that matter, the muj in afghanistan called the 5.45X39 "poison bullet", but anyway the probs with 5.56 is what has spawned the debate about SOCOM adopting something else in another calibre & the heavy bullet 5.56 ie 77gr and heavier now. NO ONE has EVER said the 7.62X39 lacks lethality, no one. but it'll never happen if for no other reason than the AK aint made here thus no one can make a ton of $$ on the deal.

i know in a combat scenario i wouldnt be that thrilled if i had an AKM or AK74 and i was issued a M16 & they took away the AK(for me mostly the calibre i would maintain it unlike some), & i just love AR's, but imho an AR is more a specialised weapon for special troops who understand its limitations.

but again, dont get me wrong, i love my AR15s but they do require a little more care than AK's, & i dont care about what this costs or what that costs, irregardless of cost the AK series is one helluva fine weapon which has withstood the test of time, both the weapon & the cartrige it fires are top notch at doing what it was designed to do, ie killing folks.

as far as reliability goes anyone who has spent time with AR15s and AKM's know that the AK is superior in that regard thats not even an issue.

folks who say AKM's lack accuracy at combat range havent ever tried one, some would wanna make ya think that as ranges increase over 200 or 300 yards ya might as well be throwing rocks as shooting with an AK, not the case, my maahdi AKM will consistantly hit 18" plates at 300 yards, not a problem at all, and i'm no great long range rifleman by any means. my AK74 w/a aimpoint will hit the plates even more consistantly,

anyone who dis'es the AK imho hasnt used one to any extent, i used to think the same thing till i tried one, ya cant argue with success.

and again, i LOVE my M4's, great handy little rifles (so is my AK74 w/a folding stock & aimpoint) but a little more tempermental than AK's.
 
Last edited:
Absintheur said:
Of course if you want to do both get an M-4...lol. Anyone who thinks the 5.56 round doesn't do it's job is just plain silly. I wouldn't want to get shot with either. The AR platform performs fine and is reliable.

I know everyone says the AK must be better, look at all the countries that use it. Think about that. If you are a third world country and shopping around for a rifle do you buy something that is hard to acquire, difficult (if not impossible) to manufacture yourself, and requires training to use? Of course not...you go with what can be produce cheaply and used by people who have never held a gun before. One that can be made in a cooking pot factory or even made using a coal forge by hand. The AR needs advanced technology to make, something many countries that use the AK don't possess. Add to that the US has not given the rifle away by the millions to communist sympathizers and countries that support communism and it is obvious why the AK is in use in more countries. It is a matter of availability. not a matter of being a better battle rifle.
Click to expand...

The same 'ol song and dance. Well, High Point carbines are cheap too, but you don't see millions of them in frontline service with armies around the world. AND you missed the point. I wasn't talking about calibers. I was talking about rifles. I'd say the better "battle" rifle is the one that works when you need it to. I also want something simple, reliable and durable - so I want an AK.

I have slightly over 10 years of military experience with the M16A1/A2 rifles, and another 15 on the civilian side. I've carried them, I've shot them, I've qualified with them, I've cleaned them, I've unjammed them, I've repaired them, and I've cussed at them since I was first issued one. (an old "Hydro-Matic Division of GM" M16 - NOT an "A1".)

In that time and in the years since I learned more than a few things about the great M16 "battle rifle". Accurate? Yes, MOST of the time. They aren't always. They are also fragile, temperamental, overly complex and require a great deal of maintenance - especially when compared to an AK.

This is due to the direct gas impingement action, how they are made, and what they are made of.

Now, just how many other rifles outside of carbon copies of the AR/M16 use direct gas impingement?

I can think of a grand total of.......two.

On the other hand, how many rifles use a AK style gas piston? The list is long. Very long. Hmm....wonder why that is?

Get some dirt, mud, sand or even heavy dust into a M16 and you better clean it, especially if you want your rifle to shoot more than one round. Do you have your special toothbrush on hand? A good supply of pipe cleaners? And make sure that you don’t jam a pipe cleaner into a gas key or gas tube. If it breaks off or gets stuck and you can't get it out guess what? You have just deadlined your rifle. Gas rings staggered? Don't know? Better check. Rifle may or may not work. And don't forget the lube - the M16 generally will not function without it - unless you are in the desert. Then you better have some special dry lubricant on hand. Ever "lube" a M16 with a pencil? I've had to. It worked about as well as it sounds, but it was better than skin oil - which was the other option.

And because the M16 does need more cleaning more frequently then some other rifles, small part loss can be a problem. 5 parts (extractor pin, extractor w/spring and buffer, firing pin retaining pin, cam pin and firing pin) of the 14 components that make up a field stripped M16 are either small or tiny and can be easily lost. Unit armorers get to pass out a lot of replacement parts. Ask me how I know this.....

An AK? Breaks down to 7 LARGE parts. Easy to clean, hard to lose, and easy to manipulate for reassembly. Once apart, you knock off the excess carbon with a rag and some motor oil. Run a pull-through in the barrel. Good to go. Lubes? Just about anything will work, and work well. It has been said that you can lube an AK with mud - an exaggeration, but you get the point.

So you like the M4? That's nice. To me it is just a shorter, and because it is shorter, a less effective version of what I carried during my service. The operating controls are the same. The action is the same. The problems are the same.

And the current fashion of hanging a bunch of crap on a short barreled carbine does not make it into some super "battle rifle". It DOES increase the weight, screws up the balance and makes the weapon overly complex to use and maintain. Not to mention that many of those high-tech do-dads (the Army calls 'em "force multipliers") require batteries. Crap like this I like to call "tacti-cool". Now I know you didn't mention this, but I am.

However, I'm not a stick in the mud. There is one "new" modification for the M16 I wholly approve of - gas piston uppers. (yup, works just like an AK, fancy that....)

Nope. You can keep your AR/M16/M4's. To me, they are nice, accurate, light duty range rifles that some folks make a fetish about dumping a bunch of money into.

I want an AK. It does not need to be surgically clean to work. It doesn't require special cleaning equipment or lubes. It breaks down into 7 large, easy to clean and hard to lose parts. It is simple to use. In the hands of a skilled rifleman, it is a hell of a lot more accurate than most people give it credit for. And yes, it's chambered in a good caliber.

To me, that makes the AK the better "battle rifle".

TR Graham
The Glocksmith
 
Last edited:
I used to own a semi-auto Chinese AK.

I have effectively zero experience with the AR15/M16 platform.

For fun & sport, I'd choose the AR. It's accurate, reliable enough and has a vast range of Gucci accessories of variable utility.

In battle I'd take the AK any day. Why? In no particular order:

1. Accuracy isn't an issue, really. WWII combat experience showed that enemy soldiers are rarely even seen at 300yds or more, and the vast majority of engagements are at 100yds or less.The AK will hold "minute of your head" at any sensible combat range.

2. Reliability. The AK's a chugger, but it keeps on chuggin'.

3. Effectiveness. The USA is now on its (third? fourth?) variant of 5.56mm ammo to ensure terminal effect. Having lopped the barrel off to make the M4, you've now boosted bullet weight to 77 grains to make up for the lack of velocity. The whole point of the original M16 was "light bullet/max velocity."

The M43 7.62 x 39mm just keeps doing its thing.

4. Simplicity. I could teach my mother-in-law how to load, fire, strip, clean and reassemble an AK in an hour. The M4, with all its current bolt-on go-faster bits, makes me think of Mikhail Kalashnikov's comment after he'd examined an optically-sighted British SA80 bullpup: "You must have some very clever soldiers."

5. (Heh heh...) Image: The AK is sexsay!

;)

maximus otter
 
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...

History channel had similar story on one of its shows about the AK.
A guy pulled out an AK he left in a locker in Florida, it was rusted shut.
He worked the bolt free (i can't remember if he used his foot, but much force was involved), and then loaded, and shot the gun
 
The "ancient, neglected AK" tale was also printed in the long-defunct Handgunner magazine here in the UK.

That version told of an AK firing a full mag on auto after being pulled from its place of concealment in a termite mound in Rhodesia, all of the woodwork having been eaten away.

maximus otter
 
Is there any way to know what calibre most AK models currently in the field worldwide are?

The Soviets switched to the 5.45mm over thirty years ago, right? I would think that by now most professional armies using the design are with the smaller round.

Based on the time period, I would also expect that surviving captured/abandoned Soviet rifles in Afghanistan would be 5.45mm.

When the USSR armed their allies and surrogates, after their own switch, was it with current (at the time) rifles or did they ship out the old stuff?

On the ground in the mid-east, or in Africa, what would one expect to find in the way of AK chambering?
 
tortoise said:
Is there any way to know what calibre most AK models currently in the field worldwide are?

The Soviets switched to the 5.45mm over thirty years ago, right? I would think that by now most professional armies using the design are with the smaller round.

Based on the time period, I would also expect that surviving captured/abandoned Soviet rifles in Afghanistan would be 5.45mm.

When the USSR armed their allies and surrogates, after their own switch, was it with current (at the time) rifles or did they ship out the old stuff?

On the ground in the mid-east, or in Africa, what would one expect to find in the way of AK chambering?
Click to expand...


1. The vast majority are 7.62x39mm.
2. Some are....but many armies for a varity of reasons (mainly economic) have stayed with the 7.62x39mm round.
3. For the captured rifles, yes. However that is not what is being used for the most part.
4. Old stuff first.
5. 7.62........chambered in a rusty, battered, beat-to-shit AKM with the rear sight slid all the way up. Some parts like the selector lever, sling swivels or receiver covers may be missing. The magazine in the rifle will generally have another one duct-taped to it. If there is a sling, it will be a hunk of string or rope tied between the wrist of the buttstock and the front sight. But the rifle will still work.

Ever notice that you don't see too many M16's in Africa?

TR Graham
The Glocksmith
 
TR Graham said:
The same 'ol song and dance. Well, High Point carbines are cheap too, but you don't see millions of them in frontline service with armies around the world. AND you missed the point. I wasn't talking about calibers. I was talking about rifles. I'd say the better "battle" rifle is the one that works when you need it to. I also want something simple, reliable and durable - so I want an AK.

I have slightly over 10 years of military experience with the M16A1/A2 rifles, and another 15 on the civilian side. I've carried them, I've shot them, I've qualified with them, I've cleaned them, I've unjammed them, I've repaired them, and I've cussed at them since I was first issued one. (an old "Hydro-Matic Division of GM" M16 - NOT an "A1".)

In that time and in the years since I learned more than a few things about the great M16 "battle rifle". Accurate? Yes, MOST of the time. They aren't always. They are also fragile, temperamental, overly complex and require a great deal of maintenance - especially when compared to an AK.

This is due to the direct gas impingement action, how they are made, and what they are made of.

Now, just how many other rifles outside of carbon copies of the AR/M16 use direct gas impingement?

I can think of a grand total of.......two.

On the other hand, how many rifles use a AK style gas piston? The list is long. Very long. Hmm....wonder why that is?

Get some dirt, mud, sand or even heavy dust into a M16 and you better clean it, especially if you want your rifle to shoot more than one round. Do you have your special toothbrush on hand? A good supply of pipe cleaners? And make sure that you don’t jam a pipe cleaner into a gas key or gas tube. If it breaks off or gets stuck and you can't get it out guess what? You have just deadlined your rifle. Gas rings staggered? Don't know? Better check. Rifle may or may not work. And don't forget the lube - the M16 generally will not function without it - unless you are in the desert. Then you better have some special dry lubricant on hand. Ever "lube" a M16 with a pencil? I've had to. It worked about as well as it sounds, but it was better than skin oil - which was the other option.

And because the M16 does need more cleaning more frequently then some other rifles, small part loss can be a problem. 5 parts (extractor pin, extractor w/spring and buffer, firing pin retaining pin, cam pin and firing pin) of the 14 components that make up a field stripped M16 are either small or tiny and can be easily lost. Unit armorers get to pass out a lot of replacement parts. Ask me how I know this.....

An AK? Breaks down to 7 LARGE parts. Easy to clean, hard to lose, and easy to manipulate for reassembly. Once apart, you knock off the excess carbon with a rag and some motor oil. Run a pull-through in the barrel. Good to go. Lubes? Just about anything will work, and work well. It has been said that you can lube an AK with mud - an exaggeration, but you get the point.

So you like the M4? That's nice. To me it is just a shorter, and because it is shorter, a less effective version of what I carried during my service. The operating controls are the same. The action is the same. The problems are the same.

And the current fashion of hanging a bunch of crap on a short barreled carbine does not make it into some super "battle rifle". It DOES increase the weight, screws up the balance and makes the weapon overly complex to use and maintain. Not to mention that many of those high-tech do-dads (the Army calls 'em "force multipliers") require batteries. Crap like this I like to call "tacti-cool". Now I know you didn't mention this, but I am.

However, I'm not a stick in the mud. There is one "new" modification for the M16 I wholly approve of - gas piston uppers. (yup, works just like an AK, fancy that....)

Nope. You can keep your AR/M16/M4's. To me, they are nice, accurate, light duty range rifles that some folks make a fetish about dumping a bunch of money into.

I want an AK. It does not need to be surgically clean to work. It doesn't require special cleaning equipment or lubes. It breaks down into 7 large, easy to clean and hard to lose parts. It is simple to use. In the hands of a skilled rifleman, it is a hell of a lot more accurate than most people give it credit for. And yes, it's chambered in a good caliber.

To me, that makes the AK the better "battle rifle".

TR Graham
The Glocksmith
Click to expand...

your preaching to the choir bro, i agree 110%.

if ya really wanna have some fun try cleaning an AR in the dark, & not lose the little pin lol, thats a trick in itself.

as far as "why would anyone want a short bbl M4"?

because they are lite, handy, look cool & spec-ops guys carry 'em, & i suppose some folks really need 'em ie armor crews, air assault guys who need something shorter than a std rifle.
 
SIFU1A said:
as far as "why would anyone want a short bbl M4"?

because they are lite, handy, look cool & spec-ops guys carry 'em, & i suppose some folks really need 'em ie armor crews, air assault guys who need something shorter than a std rifle.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but the loss of velocity renders the entire design into a purty .22. That makes me want to go the Marine route and stick to a proper barrel length.

Obviously with the military expectations for all conflicts to go to the cities, requires shorter barrels means we need to drop the M-16 in .223. It was a good run but it is time for something else. Might as well drop the whole platform and go back to a piston driven weapon. It worked spectacularily in WWII; no reason to re-invent the wheel, just make it rounder.

Hopefully they would pick 6.5 Grendel but they will probably pick the inferior 6.8 Rem SPC due to market interests.
 
zenheretic said:
Yeah, but the loss of velocity renders the entire design into a purty .22. That makes me want to go the Marine route and stick to a proper barrel length.

Obviously with the military expectations for all conflicts to go to the cities, requires shorter barrels means we need to drop the M-16 in .223. It was a good run but it is time for something else. Might as well drop the whole platform and go back to a piston driven weapon. It worked spectacularily in WWII; no reason to re-invent the wheel, just make it rounder.

Hopefully they would pick 6.5 Grendel but they will probably pick the inferior 6.8 Rem SPC due to market interests.
Click to expand...

There is not that much velocity drop, especially with proper ammo that utilizes a fast powder, most definitely not .22RF class. My shorty chronograph testing show only about a 120 fps drop on average. My shorty has a 12 1/2 inch barrel rather than the 14 1/2 the M4 has.

arshortysmall.jpg


(normally it wears a dot but I had been doing some ammo testing and wanted a scope for accuracy off the bench)
 
Absintheur said:
There is not that much velocity drop, especially with proper ammo that utilizes a fast powder, most definitely not .22RF class. My shorty chronograph testing show only about a 120 fps drop on average. My shorty has a 12 1/2 inch barrel rather than the 14 1/2 the M4 has.

arshortysmall.jpg


(normally it wears a dot but I had been doing some ammo testing and wanted a scope for accuracy off the bench)
Click to expand...

Well according to my reading the original design required over 3000fps to wound properly as designed.

For a variety of reasons the design's barrel twist rate; bullet core, bullet weight, have all been changed. They are bending over backwards now trying to further increase the grains (what are we up to 77 grains now from 55 when it was first introduced).

First they had to address the body armour issue which was solved by the ss109, but they had to change the twist rate to stabilize the heavier bullet. The velocity is barely above 3000 fps in the A2 at the muzzle. You cut the barrel and as you stated it goes below 3000, the magic number.

As you well know, a shorter barrel renders urban activities to be easier. The shorter barrel makes sense since the current military belief is all conflicts will goto the cities (and historically most have). However, I'm sure you read about the issues with lethality at range, especially in Afghanistan. If there was no need the 6.8 SPC and the 6.5 Grendel wouldn't be competing for the tap.

http://www.thegunzone.com/556dw.html
http://www.thegunzone.com/556faq.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56_NATO
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle
 
Absintheur said:
There is not that much velocity drop, especially with proper ammo that utilizes a fast powder, most definitely not .22RF class. My shorty chronograph testing show only about a 120 fps drop on average. My shorty has a 12 1/2 inch barrel rather than the 14 1/2 the M4 has.

arshortysmall.jpg


(normally it wears a dot but I had been doing some ammo testing and wanted a scope for accuracy off the bench)
Click to expand...

evidently its enought velocity drop to make a difference as i have heard reports from iraq and a-stan complaining about the lethality of the short bbl M4's and have heard no complaints concerning lethality about the std M16 or SAW's, or certainly not anywhere near the volume of complaints anyway.

if theres no problems in this regard how come the clamor to go to another calibre & the constant increase in bullet weight to increase lethality in the short bbl M4, right now they are using 77gr bullets and i have heard of up to 100gr 5.56, so if there are no problems whats up with all this?

but even with the decrease in velocity i would a LOT rather have an M4 vs a 1911 or a berretta if for no other reason than accuracy and its a lot easier to shoot a rifle vs a pistol, not to mention even outta a short bbl the 5.56 is probably better than most any 9MM or .45ACP load, esp any 9MM or .45ACP ball load.

neat rifle though.
 
I cannot comment on the M16/AR15 platform because apart from firing a few on the range I have no experience but I have seen a number of AK's that were carried and used in the African Bush. Most of the guns were in horrific condition. They were never cleaned or lubricated and when they were it was often with car oil or cooking oil. This often increased the crud and muck in them and they still fired.
They were carried by insurgents who had neither the time, knowledge or inclination to maintain the weapon properly no matter how much his life depended on it. These were not "conventional soldiers" in any sense of the word. They had not done basic training or boot camp and they had little or no knowledge of correct weapon maintanance.
To this day the Police are still finding AK's smuggled into South Africa over 20 years ago showing up in Cash in Transit heists. And certainly while not all will have survived they continue to show up with alarming regularity.......and guess what..They still work!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top