AR vs. Other Assault Rifles. Why the hate?

[Doc Safari]

My arsenal AKs are about the same accuracy wise as the colt with the same type of ammo. With russian ammo both are 2-3moa. Yes my AR could be more accurate under certain conditions but there not realistic battle type senarios.

I can't let this one stand. I decided to get rid of my Arsenal SLR107FR after shooting it side-by-side with my Bravo Company 16" AR carbine.

True, I'll allow for the advantage that the Aimpoint T1 gives the AR. I hit literally everything I shot at 50 yards, including fragments of old clay pigeons left in the desert.

But when I shot the AK at the same range, same day, I could not keep shots consistently on an old 1/2-gallon milk jug at 50 yards!

Maybe with an RDS, better trigger, better ammo, and a longer stock I could have done better, but I doubt it.

Just for "control", I brought another AR out and shot it with irons at the same range and had nearly as many hits as I did with the AR that had the RDS mounted.

End of my relationship with AK's as far as I'm concerned.

(BTW: I was shooting PMC Bronze .223 in the AR, and Fiocchi in the AK).



ln order to consistently notice the superior accuracy of the AR platform l would have to sit down at a bench, with a decent rest, switch scopes to a higher mag than l would ever even have on my AR scope and feed the AR match ammo.


Baloney. I shoot offhand most of the time. My side-by-side test was shot offhand and I can see the better accuracy of the AR just from that informal session.



The only real problem l have with the AR is the maintenance required to keep it running 100%. There are many reports of ARs not functioning well without maintenance.

My Bravo Company carbine with the RDS has had right at 1,000 rounds through it with no cleaning, only re-lubing. It has not malfunctioned once.

The Arsenal AK I compared it to actually had a failure to feed in the first 50 rounds of its life.

These write-ups you see about test firing in the arctic, or throwing sand in the action, or dropping your gun out of a helicopter and whatnot are very entertaining, but I don't plan to do anything anywhere near that to my AR's.

I'm satisfied they are as reliable as AK's under normal use, and with the caution to keep them lubed.

[Jippo]

I find it interesting that it's ok to "debunk" the AK "accuracy myth" but the AR "reliability myth" must remain firmly in place. It's also interesting to note a firearm that "requires maintenance" is inferior when real warriors continuously inspect and maintain their gear. Fail to inspect and maintain an AK and it's just a matter of time before problem solving skills learned in carbine classes will be applied in a real world situation

I don't think that this was directed towards me, but I felt that I had clarify my stand on this matter. So for the record:

Some AK's are extremely inaccurate. Some have good enough practical accuracy of 2 MOA or less.

AR design is probably the most accurate semi-automatic system capable of beating even some bolt action designs.

Most AK's are extremely reliable and able to function in the most adverse conditions. This starts from the tapered cartridge, dimensioning of the gas system, dimensioning of the functional parts and simplicity of the design.

Most AR's are reliable enough for military use. It isn't as reliable as an AK and can never be due to nature and dimensions of the action: BCG, upper receiver and the buffer tube. It is a physical & engineering fact. But as said, according to most people it is reliable enough.

I do not believe in gun myths or wonder weapons. There is no absolute best ----- of the world. Weapon is a tool and it has qualities that are inherent to it. For different jobs there are different tools, and in some jobs some tools are better than others. It may even be the personal preference and/or personal skill with a certain tool the is the deciding factor when choosing the tool. In my case it is exactly personal preference and skill in using a certain weapon system, not it's inherent qualities.

[orionz06]

Most AR's are reliable enough for military use. It isn't as reliable as an AK and can never be due to nature and dimensions of the action: BCG, upper receiver and the buffer tube. It is a physical & engineering fact. But as said, according to most people it is reliable enough.


Care to elaborate?

[sinlessorrow]

Care to elaborate?

Yes please, i loved the wording of people think the AR is reliable enough. Lol honestly any military rifle being fielded today is reliable enough not to had a stoppage. I think 90% of stoppages you see from AR is magazine related the other 10% from worn out rifles that need replacing.

Everyone i know who has served says their AR is more than reliable

I mean how reliable does a rifle have to be? Should the criteria be it can go 10,000 rounds with no lubrication bone dry? Or is 10,000 with lube good enough?

[Jippo]

In that field my personal preference is as reliable as possible in all possible conditions.

Ok let's look at the mentioned AR upper receiver, buffer and the bolt carrier: if you look how the bolt rides inside the carrier you will notice how it hugs the inner surface of the carrier. Similar design to the extreme was utilised in the Suomi SMG. It's bolt and receiver ride very close to each other as it actually relies on pneumatic pressure to slow the bolt down in when fired. As good as this weapon was for it's time in WW2, we do know it was sensitive to sand and other debris between the bolt and the receiver as they would hinder the bolt movement causing malfunctions.
Same, although in lesser degree, goes with the AR. Sand or other debris inside the upper receiver will have an adverse effect in the function of the weapon. In comparison many other designs have rails on which the BCG slides. BCG only needs to be in close contact with these rails to work: only if the sand gets between the rail and the carrier it can affect the movement of the carrier.
On AK design tight dimensioning of the mentioned rails is not critical to the function or accuracy of the weapon. That has enabled the designers to leave several millimeters over dimension on the rails, meaning that even a particle size of a sand grain can not affect the movement of the BCG as it is too small. Additionally the BCG is actually likely to push such debris of the rails to the lower receiver where it causes even less problems.

(Another related problem is ability withstand damage. Say, the weapon has to be used as blunt instrument against an enemy soldier. Any damage to the buffer tube or upper receiver may cause the weapon to stop working altogether. On the same lines I would be concerned about the durability of the magazine as well. I have no experience on performing such hand to hand drills with an AR, but I wouldn't be confident doing magazine or butt strikes with it as the risks are too large. I don't have such fears on weapons that do not have their working parts in the buttstock or those ones that do not use USGI magazines.)

This is only one example of things that affect reliability. There are also other things. But there is no need to get your panties in a twist as weapons are always compromises and one can not get everything. AR has other qualities that are superior to other rifles in service today.

[Heavy Metal]

An AR Bolt Carrier also has rails and does NOT make complete contact with the upper reciever.

[sinlessorrow]

In that field my personal preference is as reliable as possible in all possible conditions.

Ok let's look at the mentioned AR upper receiver, buffer and the bolt carrier: if you look how the bolt rides inside the carrier you will notice how it hugs the inner surface of the carrier. Similar design to the extreme was utilised in the Suomi SMG. It's bolt and receiver ride very close to each other as it actually relies on pneumatic pressure to slow the bolt down in when fired. As good as this weapon was for it's time in WW2, we do know it was sensitive to sand and other debris between the bolt and the receiver as they would hinder the bolt movement causing malfunctions.
Same, although in lesser degree, goes with the AR. Sand or other debris inside the upper receiver will have an adverse effect in the function of the weapon. In comparison many other designs have rails on which the BCG slides. BCG only needs to be in close contact with these rails to work: only if the sand gets between the rail and the carrier it can affect the movement of the carrier.
On AK design tight dimensioning of the mentioned rails is not critical to the function or accuracy of the weapon. That has enabled the designers to leave several millimeters over dimension on the rails, meaning that even a particle size of a sand grain can not affect the movement of the BCG as it is too small. Additionally the BCG is actually likely to push such debris of the rails to the lower receiver where it causes even less problems.

(Another related problem is ability withstand damage. Say, the weapon has to be used as blunt instrument against an enemy soldier. Any damage to the buffer tube or upper receiver may cause the weapon to stop working altogether. On the same lines I would be concerned about the durability of the magazine as well. I have no experience on performing such hand to hand drills with an AR, but I wouldn't be confident doing magazine or butt strikes with it as the risks are too large. I don't have such fears on weapons that do not have their working parts in the buttstock or those ones that do not use USGI magazines.)

This is only one example of things that affect reliability. There are also other things. But there is no need to get your panties in a twist as weapons are always compromises and one can not get everything. AR has other qualities that are superior to other rifles in service today.

you dont seem to know much about the AR bolt carrier, i mean no disrespect but the BC does have 4 rails and doesnt hug the inside of the upper.

the rails offer just enough clearance to keep out big chunks of debris and just enough to keep small pieces floating if its lubed(which it should be) cause you see with good lube that little sand that gets in between the rails will stay in a liquid suspension and wont cause issues. one issue i see is issued lube CLP, while it does it all, it doesnt do anything particular good, it burns off after only 50-100 rounds, i use synthetic Motor oil and ATF and after firing 300 rnds its still there

as far as butt striking people, you dont see much of that kind of garbage, and the RE will be able to take a few wacks and magazines like Lancers and PMAGS are proven to be able to withstand almost anything short of being blown up by C4

http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa273/SinlesSorrow/Mobile%20Uploads/IMG_7892.jpg
http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa273/SinlesSorrow/Mobile%20Uploads/IMG_9793.jpg

[Jippo]

So the point didn't come across then?

AR bolt carrier is very tightly dimensioned inside the upper receiver. There is but a hair's width between the receiver and the carrier "rails". Now go ahead and compare this solution to any other more traditional design in which there is a machined cut and a counterpiece that rides in it. Whole of the AR upper is critical, whilst in the traditional model the inside of the cut and the counterpiece riding in it are. Do you see the difference?

Even in AR180 Stoner made the upper match the bolt carrier tightly despite the traditional rail design. Even when there is no reason to do it like in the AR15. Such a thing is detrimental to reliability, and there is no way around it.

[sinlessorrow]

So the point didn't come across then?

AR bolt carrier is very tightly dimensioned inside the upper receiver. There is but a hair's width between the receiver and the carrier "rails". Now go ahead and compare this solution to any other more traditional design in which there is a machined cut and a counterpiece that rides in it. Whole of the AR upper is critical, whilst in the traditional model the inside of the cut and the counterpiece riding in it are. Do you see the difference?

Even in AR180 Stoner made the upper match the bolt carrier tightly despite the traditional rail design. Even when there is no reason to do it like in the AR15. Such a thing is detrimental to reliability, and there is no way around it.

I just fail to see how its detrimental to reliability when you lube the AR. Maybe its detrimental if you completely strip all the lube and refuse to clean the rifle.

Lube the AR and its not detrimental to the system, ive burried my ar in the sand ejection port up and cover open covered in sand shaken fire a mag, and repeat. I went ten magazines with no issues after that i stopped testing.

So i fail to see the detrimental flaws u seem to know all about

[CumbiaDude]

The only real problem I have with the AK is the price involved in getting one that is good and then outfitting it with all the modern "essentials" such as a sling, red dot, and a light.Is a BFG sling more expensive when they find out you're putting it on an AK or what? :D I'm pretty sure an Aimpoint and a light cost the same either way, too. ;) The prices are the same no matter what rifle you're buying it for :)


The AR has a clear advantage in being able to add optics. AKs pretty much only have one viable option- Ultimak with H1. Due to this an AR can make hits at distances beyond the capable range of an AK.Or you could get one of RS Regulate's mounts (http://www.rsregulate.com/products.php) to put an ACOG or a T1 on the side mount.

You could even *gasp* get a 1P78 Kashtan. It's like an ACOG but with a BDC for the 5.45 round. :) 5.45 is as good or better than 5.56 at range.

[sinlessorrow]

Is a BFG sling more expensive when they find out you're putting it on an AK or what? :D I'm pretty sure an Aimpoint and a light cost the same either way, too. ;) The prices are the same no matter what rifle you're buying it for :)

Or you could get one of RS Regulate's mounts (http://www.rsregulate.com/products.php) to put an ACOG or a T1 on the side mount.

You could even *gasp* get a 1P78 Kashtan. It's like an ACOG but with a BDC for the 5.45 round. :) 5.45 is as good or better than 5.56 at range.

i have to say 5.45 is better than M193 and M855 at range, but MK318, 70gr TSX and such are better than 5.45

[Moltke]

At what range?

[sinlessorrow]

At what range?

the range you would expect out of a .22 caliber? the 70gr TSX will expand reliably out to 400 at least with a 20" rifle anything past that and you get into DMR range

[CumbiaDude]

i have to say 5.45 is better than M193 and M855 at range, but MK318, 70gr TSX and such are better than 5.45This is true stuff. Part of the problem is we're getting mid-80s ammunition for 5.45, but we can get bleeding edge 5.56.

It's getting better with the new V-Max rounds, but they lack a boat tail and do poorer at range than surplus 5.45. Hornady takes the 5.45 and ruin its biggest advantage - the great aerodynamics (0.304 G1) Only the newer 5.56 rounds approach this - From what I can tell M855 is more like 0.200

Maybe in the future we'll get the best of both worlds with 5.45, too ;)

[Jippo]

I just fail to see how its detrimental to reliability when you lube the AR. Maybe its detrimental if you completely strip all the lube and refuse to clean the rifle.

...

So i fail to see the detrimental flaws u seem to know all about

So you are just arguing for arguments sake?

And it is not a flaw like you say, it is a design decision that comes with attributes. A compromise like all design.

[sinlessorrow]

So you are just arguing for arguments sake?

And it is not a flaw like you say, it is a design decision that comes with attributes. A compromise like all design.

im not arguing, this is a forum for discussion and im having a discussion.

im not the one who said it was a flaw you said there are flaws, and yet i fail to see how they are flaws.

its a simple discussion

[Jippo]

you said there are flaws

As a matter of fact, I did not say so.

Can you please stick to the facts and not put words in my mouth.

[sinlessorrow]

As a matter of fact, I did not say so.

Can you please stick to the facts and not put words in my mouth.

you are correct you didnt say flaws, you said the design was a detriment to reliabilty.

[Moltke]

5.45 is as good or better than 5.56 at range.


i have to say 5.45 is better than M193 and M855 at range, but MK318, 70gr TSX and such are better than 5.45

These are the quotes that mention "at range" that I was questioning because there is no "range" mentioned. So at what distance is 5.45mm better than 5.56mm? And what is it better at? I thought you were talking about accuracy but since you responded with this:

the range you would expect out of a .22 caliber? the 70gr TSX will expand reliably out to 400 at least with a 20" rifle anything past that and you get into DMR range

Then let me also ask what terminal effect are you trying to achieve - penetration, yaw/fragmentation, controlled expansion? So when is 5.45mm better than 5.56mm? Is it more accurate? Have a better terminal effect? Please provide some distances, velocities, load specifics.

[sinlessorrow]

These are the quotes that mention "at range" that I was questioning because there is no "range" mentioned. So at what distance is 5.45mm better than 5.56mm? And what is it better at? I thought you were talking about accuracy but since you responded with this:


Then let me also ask what terminal effect are you trying to achieve - penetration, yaw/fragmentation, controlled expansion? So when is 5.45mm better than 5.56mm? Is it more accurate? Have a better terminal effect? Please provide some distances, velocities, load specifics.

I think 5.45 is better than 5.56 when it comes to m855 and m193

I think 5.56 is better when it comes to specialized rounds now being made like mk262 mk318 and the 70gr tsx

[Jippo]

you are correct you didnt say flaws, you said the design was a detriment to reliabilty.

As it is, compared to traditional rail that has been significantly over dimensioned as it is in case of an AK. I believe that is a correct statement.

[MistWolf]

I find it interesting that it's ok to "debunk" the AK "accuracy myth" but the AR "reliability myth" must remain firmly in place. It's also interesting to note a firearm that "requires maintenance" is inferior when real warriors continuously inspect and maintain their gear. Fail to inspect and maintain an AK and it's just a matter of time before problem solving skills learned in carbine classes will be applied in a real world situation



I don't think that this was directed towards me, but I felt that I had clarify my stand on this matter. So for the record:

Some AK's are extremely inaccurate. Some have good enough practical accuracy of 2 MOA or less.

AR design is probably the most accurate semi-automatic system capable of beating even some bolt action designs.

Most AK's are extremely reliable and able to function in the most adverse conditions. This starts from the tapered cartridge, dimensioning of the gas system, dimensioning of the functional parts and simplicity of the design.

Most AR's are reliable enough for military use. It isn't as reliable as an AK and can never be due to nature and dimensions of the action: BCG, upper receiver and the buffer tube. It is a physical & engineering fact. But as said, according to most people it is reliable enough.

I do not believe in gun myths or wonder weapons. There is no absolute best ----- of the world. Weapon is a tool and it has qualities that are inherent to it. For different jobs there are different tools, and in some jobs some tools are better than others. It may even be the personal preference and/or personal skill with a certain tool the is the deciding factor when choosing the tool. In my case it is exactly personal preference and skill in using a certain weapon system, not it's inherent qualities.

My previous comment was not directed at you in the least. I respect your opinion in this matter as it's based on actual experience. Nor did you make any catastrophic or mythical claims.

My comment was in response to several comments, not limited to this thread or even this board, that imply the AK is nearly as accurate as an AR, is imbued with complete reliability and superior ergonomics while the AR will malfunction if a single dust speck gets into the workings.

To everyone else, let's be careful about splitting hairs over Jippo's posts. His grasp of the english language is very good, but it may not be his first language. Some ideas are difficult to convey when translated from one language to another. It would be less than professional to look for some hidden meaning

[Moltke]

I think 5.45 is better than 5.56 when it comes to m855 and m193

I think 5.56 is better when it comes to specialized rounds now being made like mk262 mk318 and the 70gr tsx

Yes, you have stated this already. Comparing the specialized rounds to ball ammo is apples to oranges because obviously newer specialty 5.56mm will do their specific function better than previous options. So why you think 5.45mm ball is better than 5.56mm ball? And what does "better" mean in regard to accuracy, long range shooting, or terminal effect, all of the above?

[Jippo]

His grasp of the english language is very good, but it may not be his first language. Some ideas are difficult to convey when translated from one language to another. It would be less than professional to look for some hidden meaning

Well spotted, english is my second language and especially with technical matters I am not fluent enough with it. I write everything as well as I can, and as honestly as I can without any hidden meanings (or if I have some, they are most certainly unintentional). So please, have patience with me and ask me to clarify if something I write is in some way silly.

All in all, everything in good spirit and with respect!

[Esh325]

There is a reason why contries like the UK that issue bull pups to their grunts and give M4's to their special forces.

Pat
The Israels replaced the M4 and M16 with the Tavor for regular forces and special forces so that doesn't prove the inferiority of the bullpup. Perhaps it proves the inferiority of the SA80, or perhaps it proves that different soldiers require different weapons. The SAS has been using the M16 since the 1960's and 1970's so they are familiar wit them. SAS cross trains with many US special forces so it probably helps having a similar weapon with similar parts. Another reason might be that the M4 is more suitable for adding attachments then the SA80.

[DeltaSierra]

The Israels replaced the M4 and M16 with the Tavor for regular forces and special forces so that doesn't prove the inferiority of the bullpup. Perhaps it proves the inferiority of the SA80, or perhaps it proves that different soldiers require different weapons. The SAS has been using the M16 since the 1960's and 1970's so they are familiar wit them. SAS cross trains with many US special forces so it probably helps having a similar weapon with similar parts. Another reason might be that the M4 is more suitable for adding attachments then the SA80.

The Australian military issues the F88 to regular troops, yet special operations get M4 carbines.

The French military issues the FAMAS to regular troops, yet special operations get M4 carbines, or more recently, HK416s.



The fact that Israel is switching some units over to the Tavor is meaningless in the grand scheme of things, as they haven't had experience enough with the bullpup design to understand its weaknesses.


The fact remains, that countries that have issued bullpup rifles over a long period of time, still issue M4s to their special operations groups.

[CumbiaDude]

So why you think 5.45mm ball is better than 5.56mm ball? And what does "better" mean in regard to accuracy, long range shooting, or terminal effect, all of the above?First, trajectory. The 5.45 round has a better ballistic coefficient than M193, though M855 closes the gap (0.304 G1 for the 7N6 5.45 round compared to 0.243 for M193 and 0.304 for M855 round). This results in less drop at range.

Compare the following: M4 and AK-74, both with 200 m zero.

M4 with M193:

200 m = 0 @ 2167.3 ft/s
250 m = -4.2 @ 2002.8 ft/s
300 m = -11.0 @ 1846.0 ft/s
350 m = -20.8 @ 1697.7 ft/s
400 m = -34.3 @ 1559.1 ft/s

M4 with M855:

200 m = 0 @ 2254.6 ft/s
250 m = -3.9 @ 2107.5 ft/s
300 m = -10.2 @ 1965.9 ft/s
350 m = -19.1 @ 1830.4 ft/s
400 m = -31.2 @ 1701.5 ft/s

AK74:

200 m = 0 @ 2323.3 ft/s
250 m = -3.8 @ 2176.7 ft/s
300 m = -9.9 @ 2035.8 ft/s
350 m = -18.5 @ 1899.8 ft/s
400 m = -30 @ 1768.4 ft/s

I realize the M4 has a shorter barrel than an AK74, but then, the round ends up at nearly the same speed - 2,900 f/s (884 m/s) for the M4, compared to 900 m/s for the AK74. Makes for a good comparison of the effect of the ballistic coefficients if they start at about the same speed.

The second way in which 5.45 is better than (older) 5.56 ball is through better terminal effectiveness. 5.56, as we now know, has excellent terminal effects when it fragments. We also know that older ball like M193 doesn't fragment reliably below 2,700 ft/s. Looking back at the chart, we see that at 200 m the 5.56 is already well below its fragmentation threshold. This means that its wounding mechanism is based solely on the tissue crushed by the bullet as it passes through the tissue and yaws, or possibly temporary cavity.

5.45 was design from the outset to be great at yawing. It turns out this isn't a great wounding mechanism compared to fragmentation, but this means that it is likely to yaw much sooner and more reliably than rounds like M193 or M855. As a result, a target even as close as 60 m may be better wounded by the excellent yawing of 5.45 than the erratic behavior of 5.56. A certain Dr. Fackler wrote on the ineffectiveness of M193 (https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=26905), even at very close range, due to its very poor yaw or fragmentation characteristics - typically no sooner than 5 inches, and sometimes much more. In comparison, 5.45 typically yaws at less than 3 inches, increasing damage (https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19885).

As for accuracy of the rounds, I could only say that they're all military surplus and excellent accuracy shouldn't be expected of either.

[Esh325]

The Australian military issues the F88 to regular troops, yet special operations get M4 carbines.

The French military issues the FAMAS to regular troops, yet special operations get M4 carbines, or more recently, HK416s.



The fact that Israel is switching some units over to the Tavor is meaningless in the grand scheme of things, as they haven't had experience enough with the bullpup design to understand its weaknesses.


The fact remains, that countries that have issued bullpup rifles over a long period of time, still issue M4s to their special operations groups.
They've been issuing the rifle since 2001 and it has seen combat. I think 10 years is enough time to see if it has flaws. As far as the FAMAS, the French have been trying to replace it. That example speak poorly of the FAMAS, not of the bullpup.

[Moltke]

First, trajectory. The 5.45 round has a better ballistic coefficient than M193, though M855 closes the gap (0.304 G1 for the 7N6 5.45 round compared to 0.243 for M193 and 0.304 for M855 round). This results in less drop at range.

Compare the following: M4 and AK-74, both with 200 m zero.

M4 with M193:

200 m = 0 @ 2167.3 ft/s
250 m = -4.2 @ 2002.8 ft/s
300 m = -11.0 @ 1846.0 ft/s
350 m = -20.8 @ 1697.7 ft/s
400 m = -34.3 @ 1559.1 ft/s

M4 with M855:

200 m = 0 @ 2254.6 ft/s
250 m = -3.9 @ 2107.5 ft/s
300 m = -10.2 @ 1965.9 ft/s
350 m = -19.1 @ 1830.4 ft/s
400 m = -31.2 @ 1701.5 ft/s

AK74:

200 m = 0 @ 2323.3 ft/s
250 m = -3.8 @ 2176.7 ft/s
300 m = -9.9 @ 2035.8 ft/s
350 m = -18.5 @ 1899.8 ft/s
400 m = -30 @ 1768.4 ft/s

I realize the M4 has a shorter barrel than an AK74, but then, the round ends up at nearly the same speed - 2,900 f/s (884 m/s) for the M4, compared to 900 m/s for the AK74. Makes for a good comparison of the effect of the ballistic coefficients if they start at about the same speed.

The second way in which 5.45 is better than (older) 5.56 ball is through better terminal effectiveness. 5.56, as we now know, has excellent terminal effects when it fragments. We also know that older ball like M193 doesn't fragment reliably below 2,700 ft/s. Looking back at the chart, we see that at 200 m the 5.56 is already well below its fragmentation threshold. This means that its wounding mechanism is based solely on the tissue crushed by the bullet as it passes through the tissue and yaws, or possibly temporary cavity.

5.45 was design from the outset to be great at yawing. It turns out this isn't a great wounding mechanism compared to fragmentation, but this means that it is likely to yaw much sooner and more reliably than rounds like M193 or M855. As a result, a target even as close as 60 m may be better wounded by the excellent yawing of 5.45 than the erratic behavior of 5.56. A certain Dr. Fackler wrote on the ineffectiveness of M193 (https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=26905), even at very close range, due to its very poor yaw or fragmentation characteristics - typically no sooner than 5 inches, and sometimes much more. In comparison, 5.45 typically yaws at less than 3 inches, increasing damage (https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19885).

As for accuracy of the rounds, I could only say that they're all military surplus and excellent accuracy shouldn't be expected of either.

Thank you for providing specifics. To make a fair drop comparison you'd need to have the same length barrel. What ballistics calculator did you use? So you think accuracy is a wash, nothing to say one is better than the other?

I hesitate to say that 5.45mm ball is more destructive terminally than 5.56mm ball based on information show because they've both been estimated as poor performers. The reasoning behind the 5.45mm earlier upset is sound, but without the projectile breaking up while tissue is being stretched, much of the wounding capability is lost. At this point I think the difference between the two calibers remains theoretical, unquantified and therefore inconclusive.

I suggest we take this discussion elsewhere though as the thread is about platforms, not calibers.

Edited to Add: ball ammo discussion thread here - https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?p=1223118#post1223118

[Altair]

I finally made it all the way through the thread. Excellent read (at least the parts where people weren't bickering) and an interesting discussion.

I cut my teeth on the SKS and then the AK when I was younger, primarily due to budget constraints. I will freely admit that in those days I was one of the people who made the arguments for the AK platform because I was defending my purchase (I was a kid at the time, so don't judge me too harshly for it). I also had no formal training on any of the platforms at the time and had no real concept of what a fighting rifle really needed to be.

Eventually I found a deal on an Eagle AR and picked it up. It was immediately apparent how much more refined the design was compared to the AK but it was a 20" HBAR with an A2 stock (I'm short so it fit me terribly) so I still preferred the AK despite the accuracy and ergonomic improvements of the AR. To make matters worse, it had a poorly staked gas key that kept coming loose so my perception was that it was unreliable. At the time (we're talking almost 20 years ago) I didn't know to stake it properly so it was a recurring problem.

Once I educated myself on how to properly set up a shorter barreled AR (16") and make it reliable, I never looked back. I still have a couple AK's and a couple SKS's but haven't shot them in some time. I now have multiple AR's in 6 calibers and they all run like champs with very little maintenance and get shot regularly. I carry two of them at work.

I will have to agree that the AK is inherently more reliable due to reasons already pointed out such as the carrier riding on rails and the tapered cartridge. I don't think it is a practical advantage. I believe it was said that the ergo improvements of the AR make up for the .1% of improvement in reliability and I have to agree. The AR is so reliable that I think the practical advantage it gives me in a fight strongly outweights the extremely unlikely event that it won't work when an AK would. This is predicated on the fact that I don't live where temperatures reach -25C so I can't speak to function in those kinds of environments. In such a place an AK may be a better option if AR's don't run well, but I also have to think our brothers in Alaska would know if that were the case.

That said, I am also not in the "AR is the only choice" camp either. I played around with a bull pup for a time, a Bushmaster M17S, because I think the design has some inherent advantages. I liked having an 18" barrel in a package the length of my current 11.5" SBR AR. I also like the balance better. Less front heavy.

I ultimately abandonned it due to some limitations but they were design issues with that particular model, not the bull pup design itself. The sights on that gun were terrible but I addressed that by shaving the carry handle off and adding an upper rail and AR style sights. What I couldn't get past was the weight and bulky upper receiver, issues with the charging handle slipping over the carrier rendering it impossible to manually cycle the weapon, it didn't do well when shooting left handed (it would induce stove pipe type malfunctions regularly), reloads were slower than I liked, and the trigger was awful. I believe all of these limitations can be addressed in a bull pup, at least to some degree, I just haven't shot one yet that did.

I think there is, or will be, a better mouse trap out there. Until I find it, the AR is my choice for recreational, defensive, and professional use.

The caliber is another story. 5.56 can easily be improved upon and has been in a variety of options, many of which fit the AR platform. Unfortunately none of those options can compete on a cost basis so most of my AR's are still 5.56.

[Alien]

I find it interesting that in a capitalist (and gun) society that there seems to constantly be "discussions" about various rifles that seems to always end with an almost religious zeal with Stoners rifle (God created the earth, heavens and the AR). I own several and love the design but I also love other rifle types. Yes, many countries use this system but I do not feel it is the "One rifle to rule them all". Anyone care to express any thoughts on this subject?

The AR-15 is definitely a fine weapon, but it is romanticized and inexpensive (usually) compared to other weapons. Thus you have a horde of anti-piston people saying "it doesn't do anything my ARs don't," which is usually false (no ambi controls, no folding stock, dirtier gas system, etc). Then you have a lot of false info out there about other guns.


Strangely enough myself and others have found this not to be the case. My recent Magpul Dynamics experience even reemphasized it.

From what I can tell, most people and even many top instructors stress keeping the BCG wet on an AR-15. While my AR-15 always practically ran my AR-15 dry (only ever used a thin coat of lube) and it always ran fine, this seems to be less of a problem with other weapon systems overall.

[CLJ94104]

They hate the AR for its success and it's associations. This rifle is predominately associated with the US which attracts hate from all angles outside the country and it is extremely successful. There will always people trying to bring down successful things/people. The AR is IMO the best all around assault rifle available. The AK is ultra reliable but too inaccurate, and no other rifle can keep the balance the AR provides staying in the same world in price.

[sinlessorrow]

The AR-15 is definitely a fine weapon, but it is romanticized and inexpensive (usually) compared to other weapons. Thus you have a horde of anti-piston people saying "it doesn't do anything my ARs don't," which is usually false (no ambi controls, no folding stock, dirtier gas system, etc). Then you have a lot of false info out there about other guns.



From what I can tell, most people and even many top instructors stress keeping the BCG wet on an AR-15. While my AR-15 always practically ran my AR-15 dry (only ever used a thin coat of lube) and it always ran fine, this seems to be less of a problem with other weapon systems overall.

Honestly a op rod piston designed ar doesnt do much that a standard stoner piston ar does.

So what i your op rod piston AR can go 6 combat loads without cleaning before a stoppage, when my stoner piston AR can go 4 combat loads without cleaning before a stoppage.

You see what im saying? Piston op rod designs are heavier, more expensive, have parts only they can use, and generially more felt recoil.

Does the extra 2 combat loads make it worth it? Sure if you look at it from the perspective of SHTF ill never be able to clean my rifle and will have to fire 6 combat(1260rnds) loads straight with no stopping.

I i guess in that situation it is better, but i live in the real world and know if SHTF ill have down time enough to wipe my BCG and upper clean and relube so to me the stoner piston AR is about as good as it gets in the reliability catagory.

In one range trip i fire 500-1000 rounds which is far more than id fire in a combat situation before i cleaned. If i had a engagement last that many rounds im pretty much screwed anyways

[Esh325]

They hate the AR for its success and it's associations. This rifle is predominately associated with the US which attracts hate from all angles outside the country and it is extremely successful. There will always people trying to bring down successful things/people. The AR is IMO the best all around assault rifle available. The AK is ultra reliable but too inaccurate, and no other rifle can keep the balance the AR provides staying in the same world in price.
How is this inaccurate? 100 yards.
http://s16.postimage.org/u0q6q9ehh/mak_90_group.jpg
http://s15.postimage.org/fquek02a3/type56ak.jpg

[ralph]

That's not bad. Not to be a smartass, but, a 3 shot group really dosen't prove anything..If you could show the results from a couple of targets with 10 shot groups, shot at 100yds, this would give everyone a much better picture of your rifle's capabilty...

[mallowpufft]

How is this inaccurate? 100 yards.
http://s16.postimage.org/u0q6q9ehh/mak_90_group.jpg
http://s15.postimage.org/fquek02a3/type56ak.jpg

If it was irons it would be fine. If it was no more than 2x it would be ok. That's a pretty shitastic group from a scoped rifle (caveat, depends wind and whether you did anything with it and on your position-sitting/prone/bench/standing/etc). One ragged hole, man. One ragged hole.

My super cheap AR (psa) holds 10 shot groups marginally larger than that with irons at 100 yards. And I freaking hate AR irons compared to buckhorns it the like.

[Esh325]

That's not bad. Not to be a smartass, but, a 3 shot group really dosen't prove anything..If you could show the results from a couple of targets with 10 shot groups, shot at 100yds, this would give everyone a much better picture of your rifle's capabilty...
I could, but trying to convince people would be like trying to find victory in Afghanistan. Impossible.

[Esh325]

If it was irons it would be fine. If it was no more than 2x it would be ok. That's a pretty shitastic group from a scoped rifle (caveat, depends wind and whether you did anything with it and on your position-sitting/prone/bench/standing/etc). One ragged hole, man. One ragged hole.

My super cheap AR (psa) holds 10 shot groups marginally larger than that with irons at 100 yards. And I freaking hate AR irons compared to buckhorns it the like.
This is exactly what I mean. If I did shoot one ragged hole, I probably would be called a liar. Or they would say "You didn't shoot that group while standing on your head while sipping a cup of coffee, so it doesn't count!"

[Mr blasty]

I could, but trying to convince people would be like trying to find victory in Afghanistan. Impossible.

I'd still like to see it. I haven't seen much from a benched AK before.

[sinlessorrow]

I could, but trying to convince people would be like trying to find victory in Afghanistan. Impossible.

No one considers a 3 shot group from an Ar-15 good either.

10shot is the minimum to show accuracy

[Jaws]

They hate the AR for its success and it's associations. This rifle is predominately associated with the US which attracts hate from all angles outside the country and it is extremely successful. There will always people trying to bring down successful things/people. The AR is IMO the best all around assault rifle available. The AK is ultra reliable but too inaccurate, and no other rifle can keep the balance the AR provides staying in the same world in price.


You should go out more. Not everyone is out to get you.
It's normal people to love and defend their rifles, tools and toys.
Don't have to overreact when someone brings up few points that are not exactly great about the AR15.
This over protective attitude about everything American will not help you get a clear view about things. Just because someone is pointing out that AR15 is running hotter and dirtier then other rifles, doesn't mean he's out to get you.
Maybe he's just able to look at things with a more neutral attitude. You should try that too some times.
But this is an internet forum and everyone is entitled to his opinion. I have no problem with this.
I find it sad when people that make decisions that affect many people look at things the same way.
I mean decisions that got people killed and equipped them with poor gear, just because it was American. Decisions like refusing to install the powerful 17 pounder in the Sherman because it was British. or replacing the tank before the Normandy landings with Pershing, knowing what kind of tanks are going to wait for them in Europe.This decisions got a lot of tankers killed and up to the end of the war US was losing 4 tanks for every German tank destroyed.
Selecting the M60 instead of FN MAG as main machine gun, only to go back to the MAG after 20 years of headaches.
Keeping the .50 cal as main fighter weapon all the way to Korea, while everyone else was moving up from 20mm to 30mm cannons.
Forcing the 7.62x51 down NATO's throat while everyone else wanted the .280 British wich was much more suitable for the modern war.
This are all clear examples of very bad decisions made because of too much patriotism. In the end was the American fighting men that suffered for it.

[mallowpufft]

This is exactly what I mean. If I did shoot one ragged hole, I probably would be called a liar. Or they would say "You didn't shoot that group while standing on your head while sipping a cup of coffee, so it doesn't count!"
You don't drink coffee?
And here I thought I was the only one drinking tea while standing on my head and shooting my rifle.

[Jippo]

There are few things that cause the reputation of inaccuracy with the AK. Many of the things are real and some of them are percieved, but most of them not actually built in to the design:

- Quality of the manufacture. Eastern European building standards were never on par with the West. People in the west were making jokes about the QC of the eastern products. Weapons are products of the same system as the other consumer goods they made. This means that there isn't a consistent level of products and tolerances were what they were. By luck one could get a good rifle. In my opinion countries producing AK's outside of Europe were even worse.

- Quality of military ammunition. This was never even tried in the east. If it went bang it was good enough, it seemed almost like that. But anyway, much of the same as above.

- Sights. Original AK iron sights are very difficult to use effectively. Unless one has experience and skill to use the sights the results will be sub-optimal. (using the original sights requires skill)

- Pencil barrel. AK barrels are relatively thin and applying pressure to the barrel can cause POI to shift up to 10 MOA. Shooting an AK with a bipod, vertical grip or with sling support is most likely going to lead into unrepeatable POI shift. Accurate use of the weapon system is impossible if the shooter is unaware of this.

- Specific accuracy problems caused by the poor QC(=things that are ruining the accuracy of otherwise good rifle):
1. Poor fitting of the gas piston tube. If the gas piston tube is tight it will induce a POI shift when the barrel warms up. This is because the barrel will and the tube will warm up at different rates and as a result of that the pressure caused by the tight tube will change when the rifle is being fired. Gas piston tube should be made loose enough (use a dremel) as not exert any pressure to the gas block, warm or cold.
2. Poor fitting of muzzle devices. Opposite of the above, muzzle device should sit firmly on the muzzle of the gun. If it moves at all, it will degrade accuracy.
3. Gas piston is not "loose". Well it should move. Again if there is no movement between the gas piston and the bolt carrier, the piston is putting pressure on the barrel. Also again the pressure is changing as the gun warms up causing unrepeatable POI shift.

Most of the users are unaware of the above. Now given all that is written there, there is a good chance that the good people reading this forum might be able to get one or two MOA improvement with their rifles just by fixing the potential trouble spots left in the rifle by spotty QC. Another MOA or two could be gained by switching to quality ammunition or reloads.

Just food for thought.

[sinlessorrow]

You should go out more. Not everyone is out to get you.
It's normal people to love and defend their rifles, tools and toys.
Don't have to overreact when someone brings up few points that are not exactly great about the AR15.
This over protective attitude about everything American will not help you get a clear view about things. Just because someone is pointing out that AR15 is running hotter and dirtier then other rifles, doesn't mean he's out to get you.
Maybe he's just able to look at things with a more neutral attitude. You should try that too some times.
But this is an internet forum and everyone is entitled to his opinion. I have no problem with this.
I find it sad when people that make decisions that affect many people look at things the same way.
I mean decisions that got people killed and equipped them with poor gear, just because it was American. Decisions like refusing to install the powerful 17 pounder in the Sherman because it was British. or replacing the tank before the Normandy landings with Pershing, knowing what kind of tanks are going to wait for them in Europe.This decisions got a lot of tankers killed and up to the end of the war US was losing 4 tanks for every German tank destroyed.
Selecting the M60 instead of FN MAG as main machine gun, only to go back to the MAG after 20 years of headaches.
Keeping the .50 cal as main fighter weapon all the way to Korea, while everyone else was moving up from 20mm to 30mm cannons.
Forcing the 7.62x51 down NATO's throat while everyone else wanted the .280 British wich was much more suitable for the modern war.
This are all clear examples of very bad decisions made because of too much patriotism. In the end was the American fighting men that suffered for it.

So are you saying the AR-15 is a poor weapon and gets alot of american killed? If so its not true, is the ar-15 perfect? Certainly not but no rifle is. Is the ar-15 perfectly able hold its own against all others? Of course.

Despite that it runs hotter internally has no ill effect of the system. The many military members here and on other websites will attest to its performance. Sure it needs to be cleaned but every military i know cleans their rifles in down time, same with the M4.

Sure it needs lube to run but thats no problem at all. Its not the problem child gun rags and media make it out to be. The fact that it has a 90% approval rate says alot, and the 10% who have stoppages with their rifles, 7% say it was magazine related.

So good magazines, combined with cleaning and lube gives you a gun with a 97% aproval rating. It doesnt get much better than that.

At least 90% of people who go tocombat never experience a stoppage, thats very good(considering how everyone makes the M4 seem)

[Jaws]

So are you saying the AR-15 is a poor weapon and gets alot of american killed?

I didn't say it's a poor weapon this days, even tho it did get a lot of Americans killed. :sad:

I'm just trying to say that it's good from time to time to look at the tool with a clear head, from a neutal position.

[Esh325]

There are few things that cause the reputation of inaccuracy with the AK. Many of the things are real and some of them are percieved, but most of them not actually built in to the design:

- Quality of the manufacture. Eastern European building standards were never on par with the West. People in the west were making jokes about the QC of the eastern products. Weapons are products of the same system as the other consumer goods they made. This means that there isn't a consistent level of products and tolerances were what they were. By luck one could get a good rifle. In my opinion countries producing AK's outside of Europe were even worse.

- Quality of military ammunition. This was never even tried in the east. If it went bang it was good enough, it seemed almost like that. But anyway, much of the same as above.

- Sights. Original AK iron sights are very difficult to use effectively. Unless one has experience and skill to use the sights the results will be sub-optimal. (using the original sights requires skill)

- Pencil barrel. AK barrels are relatively thin and applying pressure to the barrel can cause POI to shift up to 10 MOA. Shooting an AK with a bipod, vertical grip or with sling support is most likely going to lead into unrepeatable POI shift. Accurate use of the weapon system is impossible if the shooter is unaware of this.

- Specific accuracy problems caused by the poor QC(=things that are ruining the accuracy of otherwise good rifle):
1. Poor fitting of the gas piston tube. If the gas piston tube is tight it will induce a POI shift when the barrel warms up. This is because the barrel will and the tube will warm up at different rates and as a result of that the pressure caused by the tight tube will change when the rifle is being fired. Gas piston tube should be made loose enough (use a dremel) as not exert any pressure to the gas block, warm or cold.
2. Poor fitting of muzzle devices. Opposite of the above, muzzle device should sit firmly on the muzzle of the gun. If it moves at all, it will degrade accuracy.
3. Gas piston is not "loose". Well it should move. Again if there is no movement between the gas piston and the bolt carrier, the piston is putting pressure on the barrel. Also again the pressure is changing as the gun warms up causing unrepeatable POI shift.

Most of the users are unaware of the above. Now given all that is written there, there is a good chance that the good people reading this forum might be able to get one or two MOA improvement with their rifles just by fixing the potential trouble spots left in the rifle by spotty QC. Another MOA or two could be gained by switching to quality ammunition or reloads.

Just food for thought.
Agreed on the sights. Agreed on the thinn barrel profile of many AK's. I don't really agree with the first statement though. I don't have any genuine full auto eastern bloc AK's, nor have I handled them. The closet thing I could use as a testament of their quality are Russian SKS's. Russian SKS's are very well made rifles. You would have to be a fool or blind to say otherwise. This quality carried on to the machined receiver variations of the AK I believe. Eastern Bloc is a very general statement. Not all Eastern Bloc countries had the same quality standards for their ammo and weapons. Some were bad, some were good.

[Esh325]

So are you saying the AR-15 is a poor weapon and gets alot of american killed? If so its not true, is the ar-15 perfect? Certainly not but no rifle is. Is the ar-15 perfectly able hold its own against all others? Of course.

Despite that it runs hotter internally has no ill effect of the system. The many military members here and on other websites will attest to its performance. Sure it needs to be cleaned but every military i know cleans their rifles in down time, same with the M4.

Sure it needs lube to run but thats no problem at all. Its not the problem child gun rags and media make it out to be. The fact that it has a 90% approval rate says alot, and the 10% who have stoppages with their rifles, 7% say it was magazine related.

So good magazines, combined with cleaning and lube gives you a gun with a 97% aproval rating. It doesnt get much better than that.

At least 90% of people who go tocombat never experience a stoppage, thats very good(considering how everyone makes the M4 seem)
What if you can't clean it properly or don't have the necessary lubricants? ""The M1's were going to ruin for lack of cleaning in the holes up front-the poor guys did not have anything to take care of them with... As a result of the fouling of gas cylinders and pistons, a large percentage of our semi-automatics were becoming singleshots." - Roy Dunlap, Ordnance Went Up Front (World War II)"

Perhaps you might say such a situation is unrealistic right now given the fact that Afghanistan and Iraq doesn't compare to the urgency of WW2. However, one would be very naive to think the US will NEVER get into a conflict in the future that is desperate as the situation above.

[sinlessorrow]

Are you talking about that poll put together by the general that just retired to a fat Colt executive job?

No that was how do you like the m4 compared to the M-16. Im talking about the one held by a private company. And i agree jaws the M16 had a rocky start thanks to poor leadership and lack of training, luckily those things are fixed and the issues with the M16 have also been corrected(even though stoner is not to blame here)

To esh, all you have to do is wipe down the BCG and inside of the upper and lube its that simple. And if they have motor oil they have the best lube there is, my AR and handguns loe motor oil mixed with ATF.Takes 2minutes and you cant tell me there will ever be combat consisting of firing 1-2k rounds without having a 2 minutes break

The AR is actually very simple to maintain, you can do all the cleaning with a boresnake and a tshirt if SHTF and lube with oil

[sinlessorrow]

Wasn't that private company hired by Colt to do that "independent" poll? I may be wrong tho. Sorry.

Its a different poll, i do know which you speak of though, when i get home tonight ill link it, its saved on my personal computer.

The one your speakin of was about going from the m16 to the M4 and then misrepresented like it was something else

The one im talking about goes over all the current weapons carried by our troops(M16,M4,M9,M249, etc) its a pretty insightful document.

[Moltke]

Please show what you can of it. Or link it. Or something.

[sinlessorrow]

Please show what you can of it. Or link it. Or something.

I will later tonight, im at work till 5 then taking my fiancee ou for valentines. So im on my phone which i dont have the .pdf on here

[Jippo]

Eastern Bloc is a very general statement. Not all Eastern Bloc countries had the same quality standards for their ammo and weapons. Some were bad, some were good.

Yes, starting from acceptable and ending in outright bad. I have used military AK's from the Finland, USSR, DDR and China. In addition to that I have shot Finnish, Russian, Bulgarian, Chinese and Romanian AK's sold in the civilian market. I wouldn't rate other than Finnish guns as well made. I think the word that describes the quality is 'sufficient'. I own and have owned few Russian weapons and they are crude in quality comparison.

[Esh325]

Yes, starting from acceptable and ending in outright bad. I have used military AK's from the Finland, USSR, DDR and China. In addition to that I have shot Finnish, Russian, Bulgarian, Chinese and Romanian AK's sold in the civilian market. I wouldn't rate other than Finnish guns as well made. I think the word that describes the quality is 'sufficient'. I own and have owned few Russian weapons and they are crude in quality comparison.
I would hardly describe my polytech legend milled Chinese AK only "sufficent" in quality. The gun has a gorgeous blued finish, with a nice stock, and a bolt that's as smooth as glass when you pull it back. The machining of the parts is very nice also. I couldn't see a Finnish made AK being better made.

[DeltaSierra]

Yes, starting from acceptable and ending in outright bad. I have used military AK's from the Finland, USSR, DDR and China. In addition to that I have shot Finnish, Russian, Bulgarian, Chinese and Romanian AK's sold in the civilian market. I wouldn't rate other than Finnish guns as well made. I think the word that describes the quality is 'sufficient'. I own and have owned few Russian weapons and they are crude in quality comparison.

You are absolutely hilarious.


You suffer from what we call the "It Ain't Made Here" syndrome...


You forget that some other people have access to some of the weapons you are discussing, and that some of us aren't so blindly biased that we can't admit that someone else can build a quality rifle.

Oddly enough the Russian and Bulgarian rifles that I have experience with were top of the line weapons.

[CLJ94104]

So are you saying the AR-15 is a poor weapon and gets alot of american killed? If so its not true, is the ar-15 perfect? Certainly not but no rifle is. Is the ar-15 perfectly able hold its own against all others? Of course.

Despite that it runs hotter internally has no ill effect of the system. The many military members here and on other websites will attest to its performance. Sure it needs to be cleaned but every military i know cleans their rifles in down time, same with the M4.

Sure it needs lube to run but thats no problem at all. Its not the problem child gun rags and media make it out to be. The fact that it has a 90% approval rate says alot, and the 10% who have stoppages with their rifles, 7% say it was magazine related.

So good magazines, combined with cleaning and lube gives you a gun with a 97% aproval rating. It doesnt get much better than that.

At least 90% of people who go tocombat never experience a stoppage, thats very good(considering how everyone makes the M4 seem)

This.

[CLJ94104]

How is this inaccurate? 100 yards.
http://s16.postimage.org/u0q6q9ehh/mak_90_group.jpg
http://s15.postimage.org/fquek02a3/type56ak.jpg

That's pretty good. I owned an AK and I now own an AR. I personally notice a difference. I still loved my AK. Want to buy another. Maybe Saiga? I dunno I want a Russian one, bought the Romanian previously.

[CLJ94104]

You should go out more. Not everyone is out to get you.
It's normal people to love and defend their rifles, tools and toys.
Don't have to overreact when someone brings up few points that are not exactly great about the AR15.
This over protective attitude about everything American will not help you get a clear view about things. Just because someone is pointing out that AR15 is running hotter and dirtier then other rifles, doesn't mean he's out to get you.
Maybe he's just able to look at things with a more neutral attitude. You should try that too some times.
But this is an internet forum and everyone is entitled to his opinion. I have no problem with this.
I find it sad when people that make decisions that affect many people look at things the same way.
I mean decisions that got people killed and equipped them with poor gear, just because it was American. Decisions like refusing to install the powerful 17 pounder in the Sherman because it was British. or replacing the tank before the Normandy landings with Pershing, knowing what kind of tanks are going to wait for them in Europe.This decisions got a lot of tankers killed and up to the end of the war US was losing 4 tanks for every German tank destroyed.
Selecting the M60 instead of FN MAG as main machine gun, only to go back to the MAG after 20 years of headaches.
Keeping the .50 cal as main fighter weapon all the way to Korea, while everyone else was moving up from 20mm to 30mm cannons.
Forcing the 7.62x51 down NATO's throat while everyone else wanted the .280 British wich was much more suitable for the modern war.
This are all clear examples of very bad decisions made because of too much patriotism. In the end was the American fighting men that suffered for it.

I said the most balanced assault rifle. Price included. I am stating my opinion from a neutral corner. I covet the SCAR but cannot afford it. The SCAR is made by FN. It is not economical enough IMO. We were talking about ARs and you bring up tank rounds? Don't try and be philosophical with your neutral corner argument. You don't seem to be coming from that direction yourself. My ccw pistol I love is made in Croatia. I defend it from completely mute arguments (IMO) on this forum. It's not just a Made in the USA thing. Think before you regurgitate next time. Thanks.

[Alien]

Honestly a op rod piston designed ar doesnt do much that a standard stoner piston ar does.

So what i your op rod piston AR can go 6 combat loads without cleaning before a stoppage, when my stoner piston AR can go 4 combat loads without cleaning before a stoppage.

You see what im saying? Piston op rod designs are heavier, more expensive, have parts only they can use, and generially more felt recoil.

Does the extra 2 combat loads make it worth it? Sure if you look at it from the perspective of SHTF ill never be able to clean my rifle and will have to fire 6 combat(1260rnds) loads straight with no stopping.

I i guess in that situation it is better, but i live in the real world and know if SHTF ill have down time enough to wipe my BCG and upper clean and relube so to me the stoner piston AR is about as good as it gets in the reliability catagory.

In one range trip i fire 500-1000 rounds which is far more than id fire in a combat situation before i cleaned. If i had a engagement last that many rounds im pretty much screwed anyways

I wasn't even necessarily talking about reliability, just that AR-15s are a bit more of a pain to clean. Most well made AR-15s are plenty reliable. My ACR wasn't reliable out of the box with M193 until I got a new stiffer op rod spring so piston is certainly not a surefire indicator of reliability (despite what die hard AK fanatics will sometimes assert).

Anyway, the carbon fouling issue is not an issue for some people, but you have some misinformed people that really do believe piston guns are just as dirty when this is usually false. I had one guy swearing up and down that most of the carbon fouling in an AR-15 is caused by gasses entering the upper receiver from the chamber and not the gas shot into the bolt carrier from the gas tube and that piston guns get just as dirty and that he was told this by HK engineers at a SHOT Show or some other trade show.

I guess he's never seen a slowmo video of an AR-15's chamber as the rifle is being shot. :p

[a1fabweld]

When it's all said & done, we all have our favorites & our reasons that they are. If someone says my favorite AR based rifles are crap & the AK platform is superior in every way, that's quite allright. It doesn't hurt my feelings. But you're not going to chance my mind.

Have a nice argument fellas!

[Jippo]

You are absolutely hilarious.


You suffer from what we call the "It Ain't Made Here" syndrome...


You forget that some other people have access to some of the weapons you are discussing, and that some of us aren't so blindly biased that we can't admit that someone else can build a quality rifle.

Oddly enough the Russian and Bulgarian rifles that I have experience with were top of the line weapons.

Really? Top of the line? As good as say H&K, Glock or Sako, or even a good as Holland & Holland and Purdey.

Do you call finishing a cast piece by hand with course Dremel-tool high quality? Hand written elektropencil markings on the receiver high quality? Canted front sights, sticking safeties and gas tubes, or poor accuracy as high quality? If you do you have really twisted image of what high quality is. We have direct access to Bulgarian and Russian guns that come directly from the same line as their current military production guns. I believe I know what I am talking about.

Before you start with personal insults, you could really do and ask for further questions. I posted my background on these guns, what is yours? I doubt that you have not had the chance to make the same comparison yourself. It might be worthwhile to get trigger time and side to side comparison with a Valmet and a Russian or Bulgarian counterpart. I dare you to do that and come back here and tell me what you think.

Ps. If the matter is of interest to you here is a link to a comparison between an Izhmash AK and Sako gun I owned. Of course it is impossible to judge quality by pictures, but you can see some tell tale signs like the canted Izhmash front sight.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?60332-Comparison-AK-vs-SAKO

[Jippo]

I would hardly describe my polytech legend milled Chinese AK only "sufficent" in quality. The gun has a gorgeous blued finish, with a nice stock, and a bolt that's as smooth as glass when you pull it back. The machining of the parts is very nice also. I couldn't see a Finnish made AK being better made.

Who's to say you do not have a nice weapon? I have only used military grade weapons, not export models.

[misanthropist]

I do not have a ton of experience with the Izmash stuff so I can't comment too much on the quality there...but the Valmets are really, really nice. I think most guys who have not seen them do not have a good mental picture of the difference between a Valmet and, say, a Bulgy.

The Valmet is an AK, built by a first world, Western nation, with money, and a Western approach to arms, manufacturing, and technology in general. It is much nicer than any other AK I have ever seen, although I have used plenty of AKs that worked fine. I do not doubt that the Finns were able to wring substantially more accuracy out of the AK platform than other nations.

Note that I am not making any particular argument here for or against the AK, but Valmets are highly prized in Canada and I have played with a few as a result. They are definitely a step beyond any other AK I have seen in terms of build quality, although as I say I have used some pretty sketchy looking AKs that worked fine. A good friend of mine had a MAK-90 that looked like it was built by drunk gremlins, but it ran well, so looking pretty and working pretty are not necessarily correlated...but still, the Valmets are very, very nice. I don't know that they're any more reliable than Norincos, but if someone told me they were more accurate, I'd find that pretty easy to believe.

[Esh325]

Really? Top of the line? As good as say H&K, Glock or Sako, or even a good as Holland & Holland and Purdey.

Do you call finishing a cast piece by hand with course Dremel-tool high quality? Hand written elektropencil markings on the receiver high quality? Canted front sights, sticking safeties and gas tubes, or poor accuracy as high quality? If you do you have really twisted image of what high quality is. We have direct access to Bulgarian and Russian guns that come directly from the same line as their current military production guns. I believe I know what I am talking about.

Before you start with personal insults, you could really do and ask for further questions. I posted my background on these guns, what is yours? I doubt that you have not had the chance to make the same comparison yourself. It might be worthwhile to get trigger time and side to side comparison with a Valmet and a Russian or Bulgarian counterpart. I dare you to do that and come back here and tell me what you think.

Ps. If the matter is of interest to you here is a link to a comparison between an Izhmash AK and Sako gun I owned. Of course it is impossible to judge quality by pictures, but you can see some tell tale signs like the canted Izhmash front sight.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?60332-Comparison-AK-vs-SAKO
An interesting comparison. Perhaps it shows better engineering rather then straight up quality. One thing you kind of left out is that the Russians chrome line their barrels, where the Finns don't. Perhaps the surface treatment the Finns put on their AK's is better, but I haven't really had any trouble with the paint over parkerizing finish on the 3 Russian AK's I've owned. I haven't experienced canted sights either, or roughly made magazines. I guess I'm lucky.

[Jippo]

The comparison posted at mp.net really was all about different design approach, that is why I didn't talk about quality in it at all.

[Esh325]

The comparison posted at mp.net really was all about different design approach, that is why I didn't talk about quality in it at all.
Certainly, I wish I could get my hands on a Finnish AK. Tell sako and Valmet to start making AK's again for the American market, lol. I have a Finnish Mosin Nagant and the quality is great on it.

[DeltaSierra]

Really? Top of the line? As good as say H&K, Glock or Sako, or even a good as Holland & Holland and Purdey.

Do you call finishing a cast piece by hand with course Dremel-tool high quality? Hand written elektropencil markings on the receiver high quality? Canted front sights, sticking safeties and gas tubes, or poor accuracy as high quality? If you do you have really twisted image of what high quality is. We have direct access to Bulgarian and Russian guns that come directly from the same line as their current military production guns. I believe I know what I am talking about.

Before you start with personal insults, you could really do and ask for further questions. I posted my background on these guns, what is yours? I doubt that you have not had the chance to make the same comparison yourself. It might be worthwhile to get trigger time and side to side comparison with a Valmet and a Russian or Bulgarian counterpart. I dare you to do that and come back here and tell me what you think.

Ps. If the matter is of interest to you here is a link to a comparison between an Izhmash AK and Sako gun I owned. Of course it is impossible to judge quality by pictures, but you can see some tell tale signs like the canted Izhmash front sight.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?60332-Comparison-AK-vs-SAKO

Not every weapon needs to "look" perfect in order to work properly.

I have time on Russian, Bulgarian, and Israeli rifles, and, while I am not as impressed with the AK as I am with other weapons, they work, and work well, even if they are somewhat rough looking.


Come on man, I didn't say that the Valmet wasn't nicer in appearence, but it seems that you are really suffering from a case of national pride, rather than looking at things logically - I guess you never got over being defeated in '39 by the Ruskies....;)

[Jippo]

I'm all about facts and functionality. When Russians are able to build rifles that are on par with finish, function and accuracy I will have no problem telling you that. As of now, they are still on whole different level.

If you disagree with me, bring on your own facts and opinions. Then we can have a proper discussion.

Why don't you leave the personal remarks out of discussion about guns. They are irrelevant do not do anything to improve your credibility.

[CLJ94104]

My Romanian AK didn't even have canted sights.... If I'm not mistaken, aren't they the lowest on the quality tier?

[Moltke]

Just because it's from Romania doesn't mean it's going to be junk, it's just a higher probability that it will be. I'm sure there are plenty of Romanian AK's that have nice sights while also having other problems embedded in their manufacture, and there's probably Romanian AK's that have no problems at all. Doesn't change the fact that Romanian manufacturing processes, materials used, and adherence to tolerances make them the Olympic Arms of the AK world.

[Esh325]

My Romanian AK didn't even have canted sights.... If I'm not mistaken, aren't they the lowest on the quality tier?
Depends. Some have canted sights, some don't. It's not really a big deal overall.



Just because it's from Romania doesn't mean it's going to be junk, it's just a higher probability that it will be. I'm sure there are plenty of Romanian AK's that have nice sights while also having other problems embedded in their manufacture, and there's probably Romanian AK's that have no problems at all. Doesn't change the fact that Romanian manufacturing processes, materials used, and adherence to tolerances make them the Olympic Arms of the AK world.
Agreed. I've had experience with Romanian AK's. I remember the first Rommy AES-10 "RPK" I had the magazine release fell off. I certainly would have been screwed if I had to depend on that rifle. I own a WASR-10/63 and I thought it was a better quality rifle then the AES-10. Still, I don't rank the Romanian AK's very high. Variable quality from sample to sample. Some good, some bad.




I'm all about facts and functionality. When Russians are able to build rifles that are on par with finish, function and accuracy I will have no problem telling you that. As of now, they are still on whole different level.

If you disagree with me, bring on your own facts and opinions. Then we can have a proper discussion.

Why don't you leave the personal remarks out of discussion about guns. They are irrelevant do not do anything to improve your credibility.
As far as function, I don't see a Finnish AK outperforming a Russian AK. I'm sure the Finnish AK works every bit as well as the Russian AK. As far as the metal finish, it's subjective. As far as accuracy goes, I have no doubt the Finnish AK is a more accurate then the Izmash AK. I think my MOLOT Vepr could go toe to toe with a Finnish AK. The MOLOT Ak's are higher quality then the Izmash AK's in my opinion.

[Alaskapopo]

Come on man, I didn't say that the Valmet wasn't nicer in appearence, but it seems that you are really suffering from a case of national pride, rather than looking at things logically - I guess you never got over being defeated in '39 by the Ruskies....;)

That statement added nothing to the thread or your credibiity. I have no dog in this fight but it is amusing to see one side using facts and the other using insults. That usually does not happen here on M4carbine.
Pat

[DeltaSierra]

That statement added nothing to the thread or your credibiity. I have no dog in this fight but it is amusing to see one side using facts and the other using insults. That usually does not happen here on M4carbine.
Pat


I find the whole discussion ridiculous, considering the original topic.

What I see is one side making ludicrous statements that are not based in fact (all AKs are junk, except for the Finnish rifles...) and I simply wanted to make the guy lighten up a bit.


I'm having a hard time understanding how Jippo's claim that Chinese AKs (or Russian/Bulgarian rifles...) are junk is factually correct, considering my experience, and the experience of people that know a whole lot more than I do. Personally, I don't have a dog in this fight either, but the reaction out of him is nothing short of hysterical. If anyone else was this biased, they'd be laughed at.

Really, I'm not sure how claiming that you have fired some AKs makes you an expert. I'm no expert either, but then again, I wasn't the one that said that any rifle not made in Finland is garbage....


I'll step out for now, and if anyone wants to shoot me a PM, I'm game....

[wild_wild_wes]

I own or have owned:

Hk-91
Hk-94
M-14
AUG
FAMAS
Bushmaster M-17 bullpup

and the AKs:
Finnish
MAADI
Hungarian
NORINCO 84S

None of them have as satisfactory egonomics as the AR15 types do.

[Esh325]

I own or have owned:

Hk-91
Hk-94
M-14
AUG
FAMAS
Bushmaster M-17 bullpup

and the AKs:
Finnish
MAADI
Hungarian
NORINCO 84S

None of them have as satisfactory egonomics as the AR15 types do.
Ergonomics isn't the only important feature in a rifle. In fact, if it was the most important thing, then we wouldn't be issuing the M14 still.

[Alaskapopo]

Ergonomics isn't the only important feature in a rifle. In fact, if it was the most important thing, then we wouldn't be issuing the M14 still.

I disagree. The M14 is heavy, long unweildly, the safety is in the trigger guard not a smart thing, mag changes are much slower. I like the M14 its a classic but its ergonomics are not nearly as good as teh AR's.
pat

[Esh325]

I disagree. The M14 is heavy, long unweildly, the safety is in the trigger guard not a smart thing, mag changes are much slower. I like the M14 its a classic but its ergonomics are not nearly as good as teh AR's.
pat
I never heard of anybody getting killed because of the M14's poor ergonomics. And despite the apparent weaker ergonomics, some soldiers still prefer it over the M4 and M16. The EBR isn't much longer then a M4.

[wild_wild_wes]

Ergonomics affects Hit Probability.

[Alaskapopo]

I never heard of anybody getting killed because of the M14's poor ergonomics. And despite the apparent weaker ergonomics, some soldiers still prefer it over the M4 and M16. The EBR isn't much longer then a M4.

You made a statement "Ergonomics isn't the only important feature in a rifle. In fact, if it was the most important thing, then we wouldn't be issuing the M14 still. " Which was clearly false. No one said anything about the M14 getting soldiers killed. As for the EBR it weighs over 11 pounds before you put optics, a light or anything on it. Sorry its not a serious contender here.

I am not down on the M14. I am considering adding a M1A to my collection because I think its a neat gun. But its not in the same class as the M16/M4 family. The more I look at it the more I am looking back at getting a .308 Ar again like the Larue PredatOBR.
Pat

[tpd223]

They still issue the M14 only because we still have M14s, and there was a need for a 7.62 weapon system. This in no way means that the M14 is remotely the best weapon for the job.
The fact that we ended up with the M14 instead of a better rifle is a whole 'nother mess to talk about.

[a1fabweld]

FWIW, I'd take a basic M14 type before I'd take any AR308. I know that M1A will go bang every time. The other, not so much. At least in my experience.

[GlockWRX]

They still issue the M14 only because we still have M14s, and there was a need for a 7.62 weapon system. This in no way means that the M14 is remotely the best weapon for the job.
The fact that we ended up with the M14 instead of a better rifle is a whole 'nother mess to talk about.

Exactly. The M14 was re-issued out of desperation. There was a need for a 7.62 system and the M14s were available for minimum cost and minimum schedule.

If you ran a competition today the M14, in any cobbled together EBR configuration, would not prevail against a KAC carbine, OBR, SCAR 17, LMT MWS or other quality 7.62 system.

The world of 7.62 is way different today than it was in 2004.

[Esh325]

You made a statement "Ergonomics isn't the only important feature in a rifle. In fact, if it was the most important thing, then we wouldn't be issuing the M14 still. " Which was clearly false. No one said anything about the M14 getting soldiers killed. As for the EBR it weighs over 11 pounds before you put optics, a light or anything on it. Sorry its not a serious contender here.

I am not down on the M14. I am considering adding a M1A to my collection because I think its a neat gun. But its not in the same class as the M16/M4 family. The more I look at it the more I am looking back at getting a .308 Ar again like the Larue PredatOBR.
Pat
Don't let bias cloud your judgment.
Larue "Rifle Weight: 9.25 lb. (based on 16.1” barrel version, unloaded without optics and accessories)"
Socom 16 "8.9 lbs"

[Alaskapopo]

FWIW, I'd take a basic M14 type before I'd take any AR308. I know that M1A will go bang every time. The other, not so much. At least in my experience.

See that is not the case anymore. The more research I do on the M1A avialable now from Springfield the more I find un happy owners. While new breed AR's in .308 like the Larue and LMT are getting favorable reviews. The SCAR 17 is another option with good reviews.
To get a M1A reliable it will cost 2500 or more it appears from what I have looked at. For that kind of money I can get a more accurate and optics friendly rifle like the LMT or Larue Predator.
Pat

[Alaskapopo]

Don't let bias cloud your judgment.
Larue "Rifle Weight: 9.25 lb. (based on 16.1” barrel version, unloaded without optics and accessories)"
Socom 16 "8.9 lbs"

Your comparing the OBR a precision rifle to a 16 inch carbine made for close in work. (I assume you saw the predator on their web site and did not list it because of bias to make your point) The Larue Predator is a light weight carbine made for the same role as the Socom and it weights in at 7.75 lb. (based on 16.1” barrel version, unloaded without optics and accessories)
So an apples to apples comparision shows the Larue weighing in at more than pound lighter and it will shoot rings around the SOCOM for accuracy and its far easier to mount optics too.
Pat

[wild_wild_wes]

FWIW, I'd take a basic M14 type before I'd take any AR308. I know that M1A will go bang every time. The other, not so much. At least in my experience.

Pardon me, but where is the empirical evidence that AR10s are unreliable?

[Alaskapopo]

Pardon me, but where is the empirical evidence that AR10s are unreliable?

Not trying to play both sides of this debate but just keeping it objective. Early AR10's had a lot of issues. I got rid of both of my Armalites because I was sick of dealing with them. DPMS guns also have issues from what I have read. The Stoner SR25 was the best of the bunch but it still had issues from what I have read. That being said the new crop of .308 AR's has gotten much better because of the military trials and testing when they went looking for a new rifle. This gave companies an incentive to build a good .308 auto rifle. Competition brings good things to market and today the AR's in .308 seem to be a whole different animal.
Pat

[Esh325]

Your comparing the OBR a precision rifle to a 16 inch carbine made for close in work. (I assume you saw the predator on their web site and did not list it because of bias to make your point) The Larue Predator is a light weight carbine made for the same role as the Socom and it weights in at 7.75 lb. (based on 16.1” barrel version, unloaded without optics and accessories)
So an apples to apples comparision shows the Larue weighing in at more than pound lighter and it will shoot rings around the SOCOM for accuracy and its far easier to mount optics too.
Pat
It's still only a pound difference. Have you shot the Larue and Socom to conclude that the Larue will shoot circles around it? Have you ever mounted optics on a M1A? I have mounted a smith enterprise on my M1A and it's not difficult at all.

[Alaskapopo]

It's still only a pound difference. Have you shot the Larue and Socom to conclude that the Larue will shoot circles around it? Have you ever mounted optics on a M1A? I have mounted a smith enterprise on my M1A and it's not difficult at all.

Actually yes I have shot the Socom and owned 2 different M1A's at different times in my past and optic mounts for the M1A that remains zeroed are very rare and expensive. Its also one of the most complained about issues with the M1A. I have not shot the Larue Predator yet but I do know from past experiences AR's group anywhere from .75 moa to 2 moa with match ammo while a M1A if you full deck it out for Highpower match competition might get 1 moa and most are between 2 and 5 moa. Also a pound is a HUGE difference when you are actually carrying the rifle vs. just shooting it off the bench or resting it in the gun safe. Then there is the issue of bedding with the M1A and losing your accuracy bit by bit each time you remove the barreled action from the stock.
Pat

[Esh325]

Actually yes I have shot the Socom and owned 2 different M1A's and optics mounting that remains zeroed is a bitch. Its also one of the most complained about issues with the M1A. I have not shot the Larue Predator yet but I do know from past experiences AR's group anywhere from .75 moa to 2 moa with match ammo while a M1A if you full deck it out for match competition might get 1 moa and most are between 2 and 5 moa. Also a pound is a HUGE difference when you are actually carrying the rifle vs. just shooting it off the bench or resting it in the gun safe.
Pat
If you bought a poor quality mount, keeping zero might be a an issue. I have not had that problem with my Smith enterprise mount.

[Alaskapopo]

If you bought a poor quality mount, keeping zero might be a an issue. I have not had that problem with my Smith enterprise mount.

That is great your having good luck with an optic mount. Based on what I have seen and the experience of others you're in the minority. Besides its easy to find a good optic mount for the AR while its nearly impossible to find one for the M1A. Then you have the issue of needing a cheek riser on the rifle to use the optics , then you can't use your irons. The AR platform does not have these issues. I have been weighing my options for a new .308 autoloading rifle and so far the AR's are a lot more appealing and versatile. I think of the M1A much like I think of single action revolvers. Its a neat rifle with a lot of history but its obsolete now.
Pat

[GlockWRX]

Plus with an AR variant you get increased modularity, a far more ergonomic thumb safety, adjustable LOP, easily interchangeable grips, and huge aftermarket support.

[wild_wild_wes]

Not trying to play both sides of this debate but just keeping it objective. Early AR10's had a lot of issues. I got rid of both of my Armalites because I was sick of dealing with them. DPMS guns also have issues from what I have read. The Stoner SR25 was the best of the bunch but it still had issues from what I have read. That being said the new crop of .308 AR's has gotten much better because of the military trials and testing when they went looking for a new rifle. This gave companies an incentive to build a good .308 auto rifle. Competition brings good things to market and today the AR's in .308 seem to be a whole different animal.
Pat

If the "new crop" of .308 ARs are "much better", what has changed? What components are different?

[Esh325]

If the "new crop" of .308 ARs are "much better", what has changed? What components are different?
I use to have a classic reproduction AR-10 and it never had reliability issues. I did not shoot the crap out of though. I wouldn't take it over a M1A. Perhaps it does hold some truth that AR10's might have more reliability issues. All the designs are different and have different parts which works against it. Opposed to the M1A which is fairly standard. The military has had some issues with the M110
http://kitup.military.com/2011/04/army-wants-lighter-shorter-m110-sniper-rifle.html







That is great your having good luck with an optic mount. Based on what I have seen and the experience of others you're in the minority. Besides its easy to find a good optic mount for the AR while its nearly impossible to find one for the M1A. Then you have the issue of needing a cheek riser on the rifle to use the optics , then you can't use your irons. The AR platform does not have these issues. I have been weighing my options for a new .308 autoloading rifle and so far the AR's are a lot more appealing and versatile. I think of the M1A much like I think of single action revolvers. Its a neat rifle with a lot of history but its obsolete now.
Pat
I had no need for a cheek riser, and I still can use the iron sights. Yes, there are probably better options for .308 auto loaders these days. Is the AR10 it? I'm not entirely convinced.
http://i40.tinypic.com/2mahio.jpg

[GlockWRX]

If the "new crop" of .308 ARs are "much better", what has changed? What components are different?

7.62 ARs used to be scaled up 5.56 rifles, produced to a pricepoint. They were hobby guns. KAC was really the only game in town for serious use, but even their guns were made to be precision rifles rather than ultra-reliable battle rifles. KAC learned over time and improved their products and ironed out most of the reliability issues. New comers like LMT and LaRue came into the market and built quality products. During the dark days (1994-2004) you had to buy super expensive KAC mags or modify M14 mags, so mag quality was questionable.

The proof is in the pudding though. Rifles like the LMT MWS, KAC EMC, and LaRue OBR series are now widely regarded for accuracy and reliability. Whatever these guys did to make the 7.62 AR type work, I'm thankful for it.

[armakraut]

KAC, Larue, and LMT all get their .308 parts out of the same bin.

[Alaskapopo]

I use to have a classic reproduction AR-10 and it never had reliability issues. I did not shoot the crap out of though. I wouldn't take it over a M1A. Perhaps it does hold some truth that AR10's might have more reliability issues. All the designs are different and have different parts which works against it. Opposed to the M1A which is fairly standard. The military has had some issues with the M110
http://kitup.military.com/2011/04/army-wants-lighter-shorter-m110-sniper-rifle.html







I had no need for a cheek riser, and I still can use the iron sights. Yes, there are probably better options for .308 auto loaders these days. Is the AR10 it? I'm not entirely convinced.
http://i40.tinypic.com/2mahio.jpg

You have a jaw weld going on there and that is not conducive to fast and accurate shooting. The SCAR 17 lookes good but otherwise the AR system seems to be the best going for the.308.
Pat

[Alaskapopo]

If the "new crop" of .308 ARs are "much better", what has changed? What components are different?

I am sure lots of things were tweaked to get them to work better. But you would need to ask the gun designers themselves for specifics.
Just because the parts look the same does not mean they are. For example not all ar's are the same. A DPMS is not a Noveske.
pat

[Jippo]

I'm having a hard time understanding how Jippo's claim that Chinese AKs (or Russian/Bulgarian rifles...) are junk is factually correct,

...

I'll step out for now, and if anyone wants to shoot me a PM, I'm game....

I just had to drop one more line at this. I do not believe Russian AK's are junk, I just said that they are not well made. I described their quality as sufficient, and with that I meant that they work perfectly fine as military weapons. We could have another discussion about the need of military weapon to be well made. Some say Valmet over-engineered and over-manufactured their guns to be too good for military use and in the process made the gun too expensive. People who claim so may well be right with this.

They are very functional weapons with reasonable quality. Far from junk.

Romanians and Chinese ones I have had the pleasure to fiddle with on the other hand... And as Esch pointed out there are some really nice Chinese ones too, I just never seen them thats all.

We can switch this discussion to PM in order to not clutter the board. I just wanted to clear out my views to all.

[a1fabweld]

See that is not the case anymore. The more research I do on the M1A avialable now from Springfield the more I find un happy owners. While new breed AR's in .308 like the Larue and LMT are getting favorable reviews. The SCAR 17 is another option with good reviews.
To get a M1A reliable it will cost 2500 or more it appears from what I have looked at. For that kind of money I can get a more accurate and optics friendly rifle like the LMT or Larue Predator.
Pat
Years ago when I was looking for the perfect semi auto 308 (for me that is) I bought a S.A. M1A 22", DSA FAL 21", a PTR91 18", & a DPMS 308 AP4 16" Carbine (which was voted NRA rifle of the year). All these rifles were factory built NIB.

The M1A was 100% reliable with all types of ammo & accuracy was good. The DSA FAL was 100% reliable & accuracy was good. The PTR-91 was 100% reliable with exceptionally good accuracy. The DPMS AP4 308 wouldn't run through a single mag without every 2-3rd round FTF, FTE & accuracy was the on par with the M1A & FAL. I tried different mags & ammo with the DPMS but never found reliability. I sold it without regret & bought another PTR-91.


Pardon me, but where is the empirical evidence that AR10s are unreliable?
I based my opinion on my first hand experience & other cases I've witnessed, not just internet rumors. I have shot with quite a few people over the years which had similar experiences with their personal AR308 rifles. Since then they have switched to other platforms as well. In fact, just yesterday I was speaking with a friend who's trying to diagnose reliability issues with his AR308. He has more money wrapped up with his AR308 than any other rifle he owns & it's the most problematic.

It seems there are some good AR308 options available as of recently such as the LWRC, KAC & LMT offerings, but now you're talking $3K+. When these rifles are around long enough to build a solid reputation such as the M1A, FAL & HK design have, I may give them another try. In 5.56/.223 the AR is king in my book. No doubt about it.

[Alaskapopo]

Years ago when I was looking for the perfect semi auto 308 (for me that is) I bought a S.A. M1A 22", DSA FAL 21", a PTR91 18", & a DPMS 308 AP4 16" Carbine (which was voted NRA rifle of the year). All these rifles were factory built NIB.

The M1A was 100% reliable with all types of ammo & accuracy was good. The DSA FAL was 100% reliable & accuracy was good. The PTR-91 was 100% reliable with exceptionally good accuracy. The DPMS AP4 308 wouldn't run through a single mag without every 2-3rd round FTF, FTE & accuracy was the on par with the M1A & FAL. I tried different mags & ammo with the DPMS but never found reliability. I sold it without regret & bought another PTR-91.


I based my opinion on my first hand experience & other cases I've witnessed, not just internet rumors. I have shot with quite a few people over the years which had similar experiences with their personal AR308 rifles. Since then they have switched to other platforms as well. In fact, just yesterday I was speaking with a friend who's trying to diagnose reliability issues with his AR308. He has more money wrapped up with his AR308 than any other rifle he owns & it's the most problematic.

It seems there are some good AR308 options available as of recently such as the LWRC, KAC & LMT offerings, but now you're talking $3K+. When these rifles are around long enough to build a solid reputation such as the M1A, FAL & HK design have, I may give them another try. In 5.56/.223 the AR is king in my book. No doubt about it.

Point 1 DPMS sucks no matter what flavor. (.223's included)

Point 2 good .308 options in the M1A cost upwards of $2500. Springfields are no longer good and have lots of issues. No .308 auto loading rifle below 2000 is going to be good. You can get the LMT for around 2200 and the Larue Predator for 2500. An HK91 will set you back well over 3k. A good Fal will cost you at least 2000.
Pat

[a1fabweld]

Point 1 DPMS sucks no matter what flavor. (.223's included)

Point 2 good .308 options in the M1A cost upwards of $2500. Springfields are no longer good and have lots of issues. No .308 auto loading rifle below 2000 is going to be good. You can get the LMT for around 2200 and the Larue Predator for 2500. An HK91 will set you back well over 3k. A good Fal will cost you at least 2500.
Pat

My experience with the AR308 platform was with DPMS. There weren't 31 flavors of AR308's available at the time. I have seen other variations besides DPMS prove problematic though. Other higher end companies may have that worked out now, but I have no need to switch platforms at this point.

Like I stated above, my opinions are based on my experiences with the guns I own/owned or cases I've witnessed. My M1A has been great as well as my DSA FAL.

So far, the PTR-91 line up has been my favorite. Other than the addition of $75 HK wide forearms, they're box stock, accuracy is amazing & reliability is perfect. I'm in them a whopping $1100 each. As a bonus, factory HK mags are in the $1-$5 range. The HK claw mounts & some aftermarket designs allow easy optics mounting. I recently installed a $100 weld-on optics rail to one of my PTR receivers & added an FFP scope to it. I'm working up a load for it to do some accuracy testing just for fun.

I get that the AR308 platform has a loyal following. If they work for you, that's awesome. I don't have faith in their reliability as I stated above. I'm not going to drop $2500+ on a LMT, KAC, or LWRC when my HK platform guns fill the role for less than half the price. I'm OK with the HK funky charging handle & lack of a empty mag bolt hold open feature.

[wild_wild_wes]

Point 1 DPMS sucks no matter what flavor. (.223's included)

Point 2 good .308 options in the M1A cost upwards of $2500. Springfields are no longer good and have lots of issues. No .308 auto loading rifle below 2000 is going to be good. You can get the LMT for around 2200 and the Larue Predator for 2500. An HK91 will set you back well over 3k. A good Fal will cost you at least 2000.
Pat

What about Armalite?

[Esh325]

You have a jaw weld going on there and that is not conducive to fast and accurate shooting.
Pat
I don't think so.


Point 1 DPMS sucks no matter what flavor. (.223's included)

Point 2 good .308 options in the M1A cost upwards of $2500. Springfields are no longer good and have lots of issues. No .308 auto loading rifle below 2000 is going to be good. You can get the LMT for around 2200 and the Larue Predator for 2500. An HK91 will set you back well over 3k. A good Fal will cost you at least 2000.
Pat
I did not pay any where close to 2000$ for my DSA FAL and it worked fine. Was a great quality rifle.

[ColdDeadHands]

While I really like my BCM/LMT, I've come to love my new SCAR. No hate here. I'd even buy an ACR if they'd offered it with a real barrel.

[rcsaxby]

I have an AR and I love it. But I have an Arsenal SGL-20 and I love it more. It's definitely military grade. It's actually hard to find rifles that are military grade especially the AK because of importation laws. But Arsenal makes the real thing. I'd love to get my hands on one of those new Beretta ARX 160's though.

[Esh325]

I have an AR and I love it. But I have an Arsenal SGL-20 and I love it more. It's definitely military grade. It's actually hard to find rifles that are military grade especially the AK because of importation laws. But Arsenal makes the real thing. I'd love to get my hands on one of those new Beretta ARX 160's though.
I'm really considering a SGL21 right now. They look like great rifles. The only thing not military grade is that they neglected to chrome line the muzzle brake.

[Altair]

I own 2 AR's in .308, have shot several other AR's in .308, and have shot several M1A's and true M14's. I like the M1A and M14, but I don't see how anyone could argue that they are as ergonomic as the AR platform. Most people will find the AR much easier to shoot. given the weight, balance, lack of adjustment, safety, and charging handle layout on the M1A I just don't see the comparison. Admittedly, I have much more trigger time on the AR platform, so I can't claim complete objectivity, but they don't even seem close to me.

The two .308 AR's I own are DPMS, one is the 16" AP4 and the other is an 18" SASS. Despite what has been voiced here, my rifles have been completely reliable for me. I know this hasn't been the case for everyone and I freely admit I haven't punished them in the same manner that I have my 5.56 AR's due to ammo price differences and the fact that my work rifles are 5.56 AR's that get shot frequently, but I have a few thousand rounds through the AP4 and it has never failed me. I have fewer rounds (about 600 hundred) through the SASS, mostly GMM, and it has run flawlessly as well.

That said, I don't hold the notion that they are of the same quality as rifles like the OBR. In fact, Larue came out and demo'd the OBR for my department and I really liked the gun. It wasn't available when I purchased my DPMS rifles but I'm considering the sale of both of them to fund the purchase of the Larue. Not sure on whether I'd go OBR or Predator, as I prefer the lighter gun but use the .308 more for long range shooting.

[Esh325]

I own 2 AR's in .308, have shot several other AR's in .308, and have shot several M1A's and true M14's. I like the M1A and M14, but I don't see how anyone could argue that they are as ergonomic as the AR platform. Most people will find the AR much easier to shoot. given the weight, balance, lack of adjustment, safety, and charging handle layout on the M1A I just don't see the comparison. Admittedly, I have much more trigger time on the AR platform, so I can't claim complete objectivity, but they don't even seem close to me.

The two .308 AR's I own are DPMS, one is the 16" AP4 and the other is an 18" SASS. Despite what has been voiced here, my rifles have been completely reliable for me. I know this hasn't been the case for everyone and I freely admit I haven't punished them in the same manner that I have my 5.56 AR's due to ammo price differences and the fact that my work rifles are 5.56 AR's that get shot frequently, but I have a few thousand rounds through the AP4 and it has never failed me. I have fewer rounds (about 600 hundred) through the SASS, mostly GMM, and it has run flawlessly as well.

That said, I don't hold the notion that they are of the same quality as rifles like the OBR. In fact, Larue came out and demo'd the OBR for my department and I really liked the gun. It wasn't available when I purchased my DPMS rifles but I'm considering the sale of both of them to fund the purchase of the Larue. Not sure on whether I'd go OBR or Predator, as I prefer the lighter gun but use the .308 more for long range shooting.
I don't deny the AR series is more ergonomic. For me, there is more to it then just ergonomics.

[a1fabweld]

I don't deny the AR series is more ergonomic. For me, there is more to it then just ergonomics.

Agreed 100%.

[Altair]

I don't deny the AR series is more ergonomic. For me, there is more to it then just ergonomics.

Certainly, especially for a fighting rifle. Ergonomics, in the context of a fighting rifle, are important because they allow a shooter to gain proficiency faster (you can accomplish more with fewer repetitions if you aren't fighting bad ergonomics) and they are easier to manipulate quickly under stress.

Ergonomics isn't the only, or most, important aspect of a fighting rifle but I believe it has a place in the discussion. Reliability and practical accuracy are at the top with price, maintenance, adaptability, caliber, capacity, weight, and others concerns all being important.

[Alaskapopo]

What about Armalite?

I have very little good to say about Armalite after owning 2 AR10's.
Pat

[Esh325]

Certainly, especially for a fighting rifle. Ergonomics, in the context of a fighting rifle, are important because they allow a shooter to gain proficiency faster (you can accomplish more with fewer repetitions if you aren't fighting bad ergonomics) and they are easier to manipulate quickly under stress.

Ergonomics isn't the only, or most, important aspect of a fighting rifle but I believe it has a place in the discussion. Reliability and practical accuracy are at the top with price, maintenance, adaptability, caliber, capacity, weight, and others concerns all being important.
I look at a standpoint of reliability also. I'm not entirely convinced AR10's have it over the M14 in that area. None are as proven.

[wild_wild_wes]

I have very little good to say about Armalite after owning 2 AR10's.
Pat

Then what bad do you have to say about them?

[Moltke]

Use the search button and read up on it.

[Moltke]

The subject is "AR vs Other Assault Rifles", not the differences between brands of ARs. One of the things I like about this forum is the AR snobbery. I say this owning a tier 1 "Colt" rifle, understanding some of the major differences between the brands, and preferring not to settle for inferiority.

[rcsaxby]

I'm really considering a SGL21 right now. They look like great rifles. The only thing not military grade is that they neglected to chrome line the muzzle brake.

Oh, I didn't realize that. Pretty close though. If you get one you won't regret it.

[grizzly3]

what about mini14/30s i mean there not as accurate as a AR but the design has bulit up a reputation for being a hard use gun and sense ruger fixed the barrel problem thay are more accurate.

[Littlelebowski]

what about mini14/30s i mean there not as accurate as a AR but the design has bulit up a reputation for being a hard use gun and sense ruger fixed the barrel problem thay are more accurate.

Less accurate, more expensive, proprietary mags, harder to configure (aftermarket parts), not modular.

[Alaskapopo]

what about mini14/30s i mean there not as accurate as a AR but the design has bulit up a reputation for being a hard use gun and sense ruger fixed the barrel problem thay are more accurate.

They actually don't handle hard use well and break down in training classess quite a bit.
Pat

[pat701]

Take a good look at the SIG 556 all the bugs or out of it. There has been no internet whinning about QC for all most 3 years now. It is a combat rifle not a target rifle.

[Ed L.]

Take a good look at the SIG 556 all the bugs or out of it. There has been no internet whinning about QC for all most 3 years now. It is a combat rifle not a target rifle.

The issues involving the Sig American made rifles involved cheap parts, reliability, and durrability, all of which reflect on the manufacturer's trustworthiness and the gun's trustworthiness. All these are highly relevant to combat rifles.

[SteyrAUG]

Take a good look at the SIG 556 all the bugs or out of it. There has been no internet whinning about QC for all most 3 years now. It is a combat rifle not a target rifle.


Good Lord.

All the bugs are NOT out of it.

It still uses a sheet metal receiver with a optics rail that is screwed on.

It still has godawful Chinese crappo sights.

It still has mousetrap sling attachment points.

And it is neither a target rifle nor a combat rifle. It has NEVER been used in combat by any country ever.

[Littlelebowski]

Take a good look at the SIG 556 all the bugs or out of it. There has been no internet whinning about QC for all most 3 years now. It is a combat rifle not a target rifle.

Oh, a combat rifle. Gotcha.

[markm]

Anyone care to express any thoughts on this subject?


Nope...

[Failure2Stop]

There has been no internet whinning about QC for all most 3 years now. It is a combat rifle not a target rifle.

I think that's because everyone with access to the internet stopped buying them.
How does one make the differentiation between a combat rifle and a target rifle when their purpose is the same and they are both semi/full auto, magazine fed carbines?

Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect.

[torquemada055]

I must be strange then, I love my short gas Para FAL and my AR's and my AK's.... I also happen to own an Aussie SLR clone, L1A1 for all you haters.

All, except the SLR obviously, about the same length, but for different uses.

Why do I have each of them, because I grew up with them in the
60's and 70's...

[Larry Vickers]

Commenting on the Ruger Mini 14 subject awhile back I had a student with a Mini 14 in .223 in a class- I asked him why he chose that rifle and he said because he always liked the M14 design and wanted to be different than all the guys using M4 style rifles in the class

Well he and all of us got a real wake up call on that platform as it performed miserably thru out the entire two days- it became real obvious the weapon was built to commercial and not any kind of mil spec standards

My guess is for the average Mini 14 owner/user shooting 100 rds in a day is a lot - shooting the better part of 1000 rds over a two day period absolutely put that gun on its knees

The Mini 14 is too be avoided at all costs- it is a plinker in my book; think of it as a big brother to the 10/22 and you will be right on track

LAV

[markm]

Yeah... over the years, I've suffered through a couple classes with the Mini-14 guy.

One guy insisted on shooting WOLF too. He used my one piece rod to bang out stuck cases.

[Doc. Holiday]

The Mini 14 is too be avoided at all costs- it is a plinker in my book; think of it as a big brother to the 10/22 and you will be right on track

LAV

Well put. Most guys I've spoken with who own mini14's shoot once a year and put about two 20 round boxes through it and call it a day. There's a reason why the "run and gun" community doesn't use these rifles.

[rackham1]

Can a guy do anything to make a Mini 14 better than it is? Not that I'm advocating for it! But my brother owns one and if there's something I can help him modify to increase reliability, I'd feel better doing it.

I know the right answer is sell it and buy a quality AR but he's not there yet (I've tried). He might be willing to spend small money to "save" his Mini (if that's even possible) before he'd spend bigger money on a Colt, BCM, etc.

[SteyrAUG]

Commenting on the Ruger Mini 14 subject awhile back I had a student with a Mini 14 in .223 in a class- I asked him why he chose that rifle and he said because he always liked the M14 design and wanted to be different than all the guys using M4 style rifles in the class

Well he and all of us got a real wake up call on that platform as it performed miserably thru out the entire two days- it became real obvious the weapon was built to commercial and not any kind of mil spec standards

My guess is for the average Mini 14 owner/user shooting 100 rds in a day is a lot - shooting the better part of 1000 rds over a two day period absolutely put that gun on its knees

The Mini 14 is too be avoided at all costs- it is a plinker in my book; think of it as a big brother to the 10/22 and you will be right on track

LAV

Do you happen to remember if it was a current production Mini?

I'm wondering if there is any difference between 80s vintage and the current crop. They've always been notorious for "less accuracy than an AR and less reliability than an AK" but I remember them also being a favorite of early 80s Cold War survivalist types. Of course that doesn't mean they actually put their rifle through the paces.

[RogerinTPA]

Interesting about the Mini-14, but no surprise really. It's best use was a ranch rifle/plinker any way.

IIRC, didn't the Frog cops use to use the full auto version because it looked less menacing back in the day? I read their stocks caught fire when used in the FA mode after a few mags.

[Redmanfms]

Do you happen to remember if it was a current production Mini?

I'm wondering if there is any difference between 80s vintage and the current crop. They've always been notorious for "less accuracy than an AR and less reliability than an AK" but I remember them also being a favorite of early 80s Cold War survivalist types. Of course that doesn't mean they actually put their rifle through the paces.

That's not exactly a ringing endorsement, alot of those guys were whackadoodles. They didn't like the AR because of it "got men killed in 'nam" and the AK because it was a "shitty commie gun." I think a lot of the appeal of the Mini was that it was "based on the M14" which was the Holy Grail rifle for the ultra-patriot, but was a lot cheaper.

[Alaskapopo]

That's not exactly a ringing endorsement, alot of those guys were whackadoodles. They didn't like the AR because of it "got men killed in 'nam" and the AK because it was a "shitty commie gun." I think a lot of the appeal of the Mini was that it was "based on the M14" which was the Holy Grail rifle for the ultra-patriot, but was a lot cheaper.

Sad thing is we have the same people today they just keep making SHTF threads in the general discussion area about the sky falling.
Pat

[Moose-Knuckle]

I think a lot of the appeal of the Mini was that it was "based on the M14" which was the Holy Grail rifle for the ultra-patriot, but was a lot cheaper.

Price had more to do with it than anything. You also had Mel Tappan writing books like Survival Guns where he gave the Ruger Mini-14 high marks and gave the Colt AR-15 verly low marks. The internet changed all of that, thankfully.

[signkutter]

I like the AR platform for all the regular and proven reasons that many have posted here. But on the same note since I don't shoot competitively I find that I prefer to use a Steyr AUG with a 16" barrel in just about any situation under 200 yards. The mag change speed handicap is negated by the extra 12 rounds in the mags, the accuracy handicap is irrelevant for me under 200 yards and follow-up shots are faster for me because of the nature of the bullpup recoil. Since I dont want to bother with the extra bullshiat involved with owning and taking advantage of the capabilities of an SBR the AUG fits my wants and needs very well.

I love the AR platform and I prefer it when I choose to use a .308 cal. weapon but for 5.56 I prefer the AUG.

[Alaskapopo]

I like the AR platform for all the regular and proven reasons that many have posted here. But on the same note since I don't shoot competitively I find that I prefer to use a Steyr AUG with a 16" barrel in just about any situation under 300 yards. The mag change speed handicap is negated by the extra 12 rounds in the mags, the accuracy handicap is irrelevant for me under 300 yards and follow-up shots are faster for me because of the nature of the bullpup recoil. Since I dont want to bother with the extra bullshiat involved with owning and taking advantage of the capabilities of an SBR the AUG fits my wants and needs very well.

I love the AR platform and I prefer it when I choose to use a .308 cal. weapon but for 5.56 I prefer the AUG.

I just can't get over how inaccurate Augs are nor the craptacular triggers they have. My roommate loves them but when we take them out we get groups from 2 to 3 inches with good ammo. To me that is just not acceptable. Then there is the triggers they can be as much as 10 pounds in my experience with Augs. A good one is like a heavy AR trigger. But to each his own.
Pat

[SteyrAUG]

That's not exactly a ringing endorsement, alot of those guys were whackadoodles. They didn't like the AR because of it "got men killed in 'nam" and the AK because it was a "shitty commie gun." I think a lot of the appeal of the Mini was that it was "based on the M14" which was the Holy Grail rifle for the ultra-patriot, but was a lot cheaper.


To be fair, with the exception of the Cooper contingent, a lot of those guys were the first ones to actually go "train" with their weapons. And while there was of course a "goober element" as can be found in any firearm group, I remember seeing a LOT of ARs and AKs as well.

Some were really serious about how they trained (funny how the belief that you will actually be nuked in the immediate future can motivate some) and would be taking carbine classes "if" they existed at the time. But I absolutely know what you are talking about regarding the whackadoo crowd. And yes they are still with us.

[Larry Vickers]

In this day and age, with the quality of the AR's on the market, you need a piss test if you are running a Mini 14 vs an AR

Tell your brother to do whatever it takes to get a real gun- his efforts would be like customizing a Yugo

Hit M4C for research and go from there; start with the letters DD, BCM, and Colt and you will be off to a great start

[jesuvuah]

I agree that there are many reasons on why to own an AR in the US. Those reasons are why I own them. There are not many platforms were you can get good quality lightweight mags for dirtcheap. Not many systems were you can pick up a bolt from just about anywhere and put it in your gun with confidence that it will work properly.

That being said, that explains the love for the AR, but it does not explain hate for other sytems. I think the reason people hate other systems, is that once they have spent their money they cannot accept that there may be other firearms which may in fact be better. And when I say better, I means simply better at what a gun is designed to do, not better as in the most logical choice. So instead of being honest and saying, I choose gun x because the pros outweighted the cons, they try to pretend the cons do not exist at all. I think that is where the hate comes from.

[ermac]

If I was a soldier going to Iraq, I would most definitely take the M4. For home defense, I don't think there's anything wrong with the Mini.

[signkutter]

I just can't get over how inaccurate Augs are nor the craptacular triggers they have. My roommate loves them but when we take them out we get groups from 2 to 3 inches with good ammo. To me that is just not acceptable. Then there is the triggers they can be as much as 10 pounds in my experience with Augs. A good one is like a heavy AR trigger. But to each his own.
Pat

Yep that's about right @ 100 yards w/16" barrel. To get 2-3" groups. I use 62 grain Golden-Bear .223 which is pretty "frugal minded" ammo. I do better with Speer 64g GDSP , certainly well enough to put three rounds between the adams-apple and nipples in short order. For PD and HD purposes that fits the bill perfectly as most encounters will take place in well under 30 yards. In fact I zero in my AUG @ 50 yards and have learned the POI adustments for under 20yards all the while still maintaining the capability of puttin lead in the 5 ring at 100 yards.

As far as the trigger goes there are full metal trigger packs (HTM Hybrid trigger pack by 20/20 precision) that are sold now for the AUG that drastically improves creep and feel for about the same price as a quality drop-in AR trigger. I simply busted my trigger pack down did a full buff job and installed a Nue-Trigger and it was better than any stock AR trigger I have used, not as snappy as a nice single-stage AR trigger but still very predictable and smooth at about 5 lb pull.

I will be truthful and say that if I was to competitively shoot I would VERY likely choose a weapon based on the AR platform. There is no replacement for the versatility, mod options, mag change speed, accuracy that the AR platform offers. When competing every little advantage counts.

For a "truck gun" that I don't want to worry about dinging and I know will eat any ammo I can throw at it, will run dirty and dry, is very maneuverable in tight spaces, is very naturally quick pointing, very quick to field strip and clean ( for me faster than an AR), recoil nature is very "followup shot friendly" and carries 42 round mags unobtrusively AND all the advantages of an SBR and none of the disadvantages without forking over 300 bucks and waiting 6-9 months for the "privilege", for my purposes an AUG cant be beat as it does all these things better than any other weapon I have owned.

[rackham1]

In this day and age, with the quality of the AR's on the market, you need a piss test if you are running a Mini 14 vs an AR

Tell your brother to do whatever it takes to get a real gun- his efforts would be like customizing a Yugo

Hit M4C for research and go from there; start with the letters DD, BCM, and Colt and you will be off to a great start

Very nice. The yugo comment isn't what I was expecting but answers my question exactly.

My preferred letters happen to be BCM but I tried to get him into a Colt a few months ago. He bought a S&W Sport to supplement his Mini 14 instead. Baby steps... I suppose.

Thanks, LAV.

[soulezoo]

I bought a mini-14 in 1980 when a membership club was having a going out of business sale. It was less than $200 which was a lot of $$$ for me then. There existed not nearly the selection of AR's then and they were very expensive starting around $700 and going straight up. Also, then, they still suffered from bad press and reputation, deserved or not. So the mini-14 served as my entry into the "assault carbine" class. I agree it is not that. I still have it and my daughters use it for plinking when we go out. It is simple, light and not intimidating for them. I feel the mini has its place and should not be dismissed out of hand.

That said, I'd never use it for anything serious. I have a well made AR and an FAL for those purposes.

Having lived in Commifornia for 50 years, the hate I see is a little different than the OP's question. The AR and the AK stand as the posterchildren for hate of the "black rifle". Evil and cold hearted its very silhouette sends fear down the spine of the average citizen having been brainwashed by media and academia over the senseless carnage these evil guns have wrought. :rolleyes: I still recall very well the Stockton school shootings that started the whole assault weapons ban.

To the OP's point, I don't know why the hate. I like any number of guns, utilize them for their intended purpose and certainly do not begrudge anyone their choice. I'll never own an AK, but that is my choice and I can certainly appreciate what they bring to the table. Whatever floats your boat. I make my choices for my reasons and am prepared to live (or die) by them. Ask me my opinion, I'll give it for what it is worth (zero). But I won't engage in the mine is better than yours pissing contests. Guns can be like women. Some guys like Blonds, some like Redheads, some like Brunettes. They all have the ability to send you to the poor house or funny farm in equal measure.

For today, I think the AR provides the best overall platform all things considered and properly weighted. The only two areas that I think could be improved upon (just my opinion) is piston operated over DI and a less complicated bolt assembly. Anything else is minor at best.

[Doc Safari]

To be fair, with the exception of the Cooper contingent, a lot of those guys were the first ones to actually go "train" with their weapons. And while there was of course a "goober element" as can be found in any firearm group, I remember seeing a LOT of ARs and AKs as well.

Some were really serious about how they trained (funny how the belief that you will actually be nuked in the immediate future can motivate some) and would be taking carbine classes "if" they existed at the time. But I absolutely know what you are talking about regarding the whackadoo crowd. And yes they are still with us.

Of course, the ultimate bubba militia whackadoo carbine was (drum roll): the SKS.

I remember people going to gun shows where they had Russkie Simonov's stacked three and four deep on tables. Bubbas would buy one of each color (gotta have a red one, a laminated one, a brown one, and whatnot). Then they would go back into the gun show and buy the cheap crates of 7.62x39.

Only the guys with money bought the Mini-14's, M1A's, and AR's. They stuck out like the one person wearing a suit when everyone else was in jeans. Oh, and the AK people were there, too. The ugly butthole stocks on the MAK90's sort of made the SKS people feel better about not having detachable mags (unless of course you purchased that duckbilled banana-clip abortion and found out that the word "reliability" is your new worry).

Ah...those were the days. :D

[Doc. Holiday]

Of course, the ultimate bubba militia whackadoo carbine was (drum roll): the SKS.



Omg...please don't start with the SKS's lolz...

[nineteenkilo]

Oh, and the AK people were there, too. The ugly butthole stocks on the MAK90's sort of made the SKS people feel better about not having detachable mags (unless of course you purchased that duckbilled banana-clip abortion and found out that the word "reliability" is your new worry).

Ah...those were the days. :D

Jesus man. I nearly blew Coke out my nose reading this. Nicely done and all too accurate.

[Moose-Knuckle]

Of course, the ultimate bubba militia whackadoo carbine was (drum roll): the SKS.

I remember people going to gun shows where they had Russkie Simonov's stacked three and four deep on tables. Bubbas would buy one of each color (gotta have a red one, a laminated one, a brown one, and whatnot). Then they would go back into the gun show and buy the cheap crates of 7.62x39.

Only the guys with money bought the Mini-14's, M1A's, and AR's. They stuck out like the one person wearing a suit when everyone else was in jeans. Oh, and the AK people were there, too. The ugly butthole stocks on the MAK90's sort of made the SKS people feel better about not having detachable mags (unless of course you purchased that duckbilled banana-clip abortion and found out that the word "reliability" is your new worry).

Ah...those were the days. :D

Again it was due to price point. During '94 I recall SKSs stacked in crates from the floor to the ceiling at gun shows selling for $49 to $89.

If I had to choose between an SKS or a Mini-14 I would go with the SKS every time. It is a combat rifle that has seen conflicts on multiple continents. The Mini-14 . . . no so much.

[KarbonChemist]

I'm an AR guy but I shot an AK and I see the draw, but man...lots of play in the guns. Seemed cheap, but I understand why they run in almost anything.

[Doc. Holiday]

Most cheap AK's have a lot of play just like the cheap AR's do. But then again, I've seen some pretty expensive AK's and AR's have play as well even with an accuwedge.

[Moltke]

If I had to choose between an SKS or a Mini-14 I would go with the SKS every time. It is a combat rifle that has seen conflicts on multiple continents. The Mini-14 . . . no so much.

Not that I have much experience with either platform other than a few rounds fired here or there, but I find that anyone would choose an SKS over a Mini-14 very surprising.

The Mini-14 is lighter, shorter and recoils less (marginally).

The Mini-14 shoots .223 which now has dozens of great options for excellent accuracy and terminal performance, whereas the ammunition choices in 7.62x39 also have some good options, it's just not a comparable selection.

The Mini-14 has high capacity detachable magazines and the SKS has a 10rd internal magazine.

The Mini-14 can easily be fitted with a variety of scopes, red dots, or other optics and would likely hold groups at distance better than an SKS assuming it could also be outfitted with a scope of the same type. (The accuracy comment is just the impression I remember from putting only a few rounds downrange).

I don't own either an SKS or Mini-14, and my experience is very limited but for up close shooting, I'd rather have the lighter, smaller, lower recoil, higher capacity rifle and for distance shooting I'd rather have whatever is more accurate. It seems to me that the Mini-14 wins out on this criteria all around.

As far as I'm concerned, the only thing the SKS has going for it, is that it's cheap and you could buy 5x for the price of a Mini-14. (o_O)

[MountainRaven]

Except the SKS has been and is still being used in combat zones around the world. The Mini-14, to the best of my knowledge, is issued only to a handful of police forces and the armed forces of Bermuda (I suppose it would be a question for LAV whether the L85A1 is better or worse than the Mini-14. Although I strongly suspect that cost played a significant factor in Bermuda's selection).

[Moltke]

The SKS might be getting used still, and it might have had a nice long service life with some poor Soviet bloc countries, but that doesn't mean it's a more capable weapon. I'm also not saying that an SKS won't get the job done as a service rifle, but if given the choice - wouldn't everyone want the lighter, smaller, higher capacity, more accurate, more customizable/modular rifle that has an abundance of readily available ammunition choices?

Oh wait, now were back to talking about what makes the AR so ideal... :D

[MountainRaven]

How was the ammo situation 20-30 years ago?

Since we're talking 80s/90s. To the best of my knowledge the only good 223/5.56mm load at the time was those loaded with Nosler Partitions. 7.62x39mm, on the other hand had soft points from Remington, Winchester, and Federal. Soft points that are still quite good (not to say that 224-dia. NosParts are bad).

[Alaskapopo]

Most cheap AK's have a lot of play just like the cheap AR's do. But then again, I've seen some pretty expensive AK's and AR's have play as well even with an accuwedge.

Lots of play does not mean cheap nor is it a bad thing. Also I have seen lots of cheaper guns like RRA that were extreemly tight and that is not a good thing on a rifle you may actually want to take down in the field to clean. I have also had Colts that are top quality guns with a lot of play.
Pat

[Alaskapopo]

How was the ammo situation 20-30 years ago?

Since we're talking 80s/90s. To the best of my knowledge the only good 223/5.56mm load at the time was those loaded with Nosler Partitions. 7.62x39mm, on the other hand had soft points from Remington, Winchester, and Federal. Soft points that are still quite good (not to say that 224-dia. NosParts are bad).

I have never known a nosler patrition to be loaded in the 5.56 and there were plenty of 55 grain soft points out that worked fine. Not great through barriers but generally had good terminal performance in shootings. The bulk of AK rounds then and now were mil sup crap that did not perform all that great.
Pat

[Moltke]

How was the ammo situation 20-30 years ago?

Since we're talking 80s/90s. To the best of my knowledge the only good 223/5.56mm load at the time was those loaded with Nosler Partitions. 7.62x39mm, on the other hand had soft points from Remington, Winchester, and Federal. Soft points that are still quite good (not to say that 224-dia. NosParts are bad).

Since when was this thread set in the 80s/90s? I must have missed it when it was scoped down to those 2 decades. Regardless, the ammo availability issue is not nearly enough to tip the scales in favor of an SKS over a Mini-14.

[Alaskapopo]

Since when was this thread set in the 80s/90s? I must have missed it when it was scoped down to those 2 decades. Regardless, the ammo availability issue is not nearly enough to tip the scales in favor of an SKS over a Mini-14.

Mini or SKS talk about two bad choices. Both will work but neither is ideal.
Pat

[Moose-Knuckle]

Not that I have much experience with either platform other than a few rounds fired here or there, but I find that anyone would choose an SKS over a Mini-14 very surprising.

The Mini-14 is lighter, shorter and recoils less (marginally).

The Mini-14 shoots .223 which now has dozens of great options for excellent accuracy and terminal performance, whereas the ammunition choices in 7.62x39 also have some good options, it's just not a comparable selection.

The Mini-14 has high capacity detachable magazines and the SKS has a 10rd internal magazine.

The Mini-14 can easily be fitted with a variety of scopes, red dots, or other optics and would likely hold groups at distance better than an SKS assuming it could also be outfitted with a scope of the same type. (The accuracy comment is just the impression I remember from putting only a few rounds downrange).

I don't own either an SKS or Mini-14, and my experience is very limited but for up close shooting, I'd rather have the lighter, smaller, lower recoil, higher capacity rifle and for distance shooting I'd rather have whatever is more accurate. It seems to me that the Mini-14 wins out on this criteria all around.

As far as I'm concerned, the only thing the SKS has going for it, is that it's cheap and you could buy 5x for the price of a Mini-14. (o_O)

I sold my one and only Mini-14 for $450 back in '05. At the show I sold it, I took the cash over a couple isles and bought an Arsenal SLR-105R. When they come up on the secondary market the SLR-105s go as high as $1500. Not a bad investment on my part.

Again, the SKS has seen combat in various shit holes the globe over. I cannot recall a single conflict where I see third world fighters carrying Mini 14s/30s.

There are plenty of aftermarket SKS high capacity mags, optic mounts, (God forbid) and yes even rail systems for them. On an SKS you can maintain your weapon with parts, tools, etc. the Mini-14 requires most the work done on them to be perforemd at the factory level. In fact Ruger makes you send the Mini's back for things that you could do yourself on an AK, SKS, AR, FAL, M14, G3, etc. Also Ruger factory hi-caps have only been available after both the Clinton Ban and Bill Ruger died.

[Moltke]

What's the fact that "gun X has been used here and there, and all over the world" have to do with anything. Axes have been used all over the world but I'd rather have a chainsaw if my goal was to cut down a bunch of trees.

[Doc. Holiday]

Lots of play does not mean cheap nor is it a bad thing. Also I have seen lots of cheaper guns like RRA that were extreemly tight and that is not a good thing on a rifle you may actually want to take down in the field to clean. I have also had Colts that are top quality guns with a lot of play.
Pat

I agree with the fact that play doesn't mean it's because it's cheap. (Hence the reason why I referred to expensive AK's and AR's having play as well.) I personally am not too fond of play in guns.

[Moose-Knuckle]

What's the fact that "gun X has been used here and there, and all over the world" have to do with anything. Axes have been used all over the world but I'd rather have a chainsaw if my goal was to cut down a bunch of trees.

Well not all axes are created equal either, just ask any serious woodsman.

It's the same reason why I would take a Colt 6920 over a DPMS, Bushmaster, Olympic, etc. ad nauseum. I'm sure a Ruger SR9 is a nifty little 9mm but why spend the same amount of money on a design that has never seen combat or global LE use such as the M9, G17, P226, etc.?

It boils down to mil spec vs. commercial, proven vs. un-proven.

[MountainRaven]

Since when was this thread set in the 80s/90s? I must have missed it when it was scoped down to those 2 decades. Regardless, the ammo availability issue is not nearly enough to tip the scales in favor of an SKS over a Mini-14.

I thought we were talking about the better 1980s/90s Survivonut rifle. If we're talking hypothetically about which 80s/90s Survivonut favorite we'd rather have, it would seem to make sense to me that we limit things to what was available at the time.


I have never known a nosler patrition to be loaded in the 5.56 and there were plenty of 55 grain soft points out that worked fine. Not great through barriers but generally had good terminal performance in shootings. The bulk of AK rounds then and now were mil sup crap that did not perform all that great.
Pat

The bulk of 223 and 5.56mm ammo is crap, too. And I don't recall seeing any traditional cup-and-core soft points on Doc Roberts' list of recommended 223 loads (I'll check), while he does recommend some of those same cup-and-core bullets in the 7.62x39mm. If memory serves, one of those was loaded by Lapua... a load that is no longer available in this country. I would not use the words 'Lapua' and 'crap' in the same sentence, except to say something like, 'That 338 Lapua kicked the crap out of that deer!'

[Dlo250]

To me, the next evolution of the ar is the SCAR. I picked up a SCAR 16 a few months ago and love it. It takes ar magazines, is a breeze to clean, and shoots soft. Granted its a 5.56, but it's still very light on the recoil. The fact that I don't have to go buy new magazines is great. The hang up I have with the SCAR is that there is little aftermarket availability of parts. I don't see many parts around for the ak rifles the way I do for the ar though either. It's the same logic I have for owning a glock vs another type of pistol, I can get glock parts anywhere and cheap to boot. That being said, the fn SCAR16 is a Belgian gun, although its made with a lot of US parts... It's nice to have so many choices.

[Alaskapopo]

I thought we were talking about the better 1980s/90s Survivonut rifle. If we're talking hypothetically about which 80s/90s Survivonut favorite we'd rather have, it would seem to make sense to me that we limit things to what was available at the time.



The bulk of 223 and 5.56mm ammo is crap, too. And I don't recall seeing any traditional cup-and-core soft points on Doc Roberts' list of recommended 223 loads (I'll check), while he does recommend some of those same cup-and-core bullets in the 7.62x39mm. If memory serves, one of those was loaded by Lapua... a load that is no longer available in this country. I would not use the words 'Lapua' and 'crap' in the same sentence, except to say something like, 'That 338 Lapua kicked the crap out of that deer!'

We had 69 grain Federal match back then and it works nearly as well as 77 grain MK262. The standard softpoints while not great by todays standards work much better than the mil surp AK rounds by far.
Pat

[Failure2Stop]

To me, the next evolution of the ar is the SCAR.

The SCAR is not an evolution of the AR, it is a completely seperate design lineage, more comparable to an evolution of the FN FNC.

[Doc. Holiday]

I don't see many parts around for the ak rifles the way I do for the ar though either. . .

That's because AK's are amazing like that. ;-)

[Dlo250]

That's because AK's are amazing like that. ;-)

That's my point though. Man made stuff will break. The parts to the saiga I have seem cheap to me compared to the ar.

[Littlelebowski]

That's my point though. Man made stuff will break. The parts to the saiga I have seem cheap to me compared to the ar.

Like a new caliber conversion? How about changing out barrels? How much does a Saiga cost and is it ready to go out of the box?

[Magic_Salad0892]

Sling points on a SCAR suck ass.

[Dlo250]

Like a new caliber conversion? How about changing out barrels? How much does a Saiga cost and is it ready to go out of the box?

How about all that? I never hear of anyone changing out anything in an ak. I hear things like, Russian ak or Egyptian ak or yugo ak. Ak parts don't appear heat treated and the machining is bush league, assuming its not stamped in the first place, yet everyone raves about the Ak's reliability. On my saiga 12 I had to polish everything so it would cycle properly. Then I handle AR or SCAR parts and its the definition of precision. Heat treated, forged parts.

Ps- the single point sling on my scar works just fine.

[Dlo250]

Now some of the materials used on the SCAR = thumbs down. The plastic picatinny side rails = suck. The plastic rear sling attachment hoops = suck. The functioning parts that move = good and robust. My verdict is still out on the rear stock. I feel like I'm waiting for the stock to break every time I shoot it.

[Dlo250]

Correction: aluminum rear sling hoop13942

[Littlelebowski]

How about all that? I never hear of anyone changing out anything in an ak. I hear things like, Russian ak or Egyptian ak or yugo ak. Ak parts don't appear heat treated and the machining is bush league, assuming its not stamped in the first place, yet everyone raves about the Ak's reliability. On my saiga 12 I had to polish everything so it would cycle properly. Then I handle AR or SCAR parts and its the definition of precision. Heat treated, forged parts.

Ps- the single point sling on my scar works just fine.

You do not understand my point.

[a1fabweld]

I'm vested deeply into the AR (5.56) & HK (7.62) platforms to consider changing anytime soon over a minor improvemnet in design of another platform that suits the purpose for me. SCAR, ACR, AR10, Robinson, Piston...Nah.

[Dlo250]

You do not understand my point.

Agreed. Can you help me understand what you are trying to say? I'm curious about the many benefits of the ak platform.

[Littlelebowski]

Agreed. Can you help me understand what you are trying to say? I'm curious about the many benefits of the ak platform.

You need a three ton press to replace barrels on an AK, multi caliber conversions are unheard of, and a top notch,ready to go AK cannot be had for the same price as a COlt/LMT/BCM/DD.

The ARs strength is modularity. The AK is woefully lacking on this.

[Dlo250]

Trying to continue a good conversation: what denotes a good to go AK? If they are so great and reliable, yet nobody can wrench on them, what does an ak need to go from stock to ready to rock? And how would you go about doing that anyway?

[Dlo250]

Trying to continue a good conversation: what denotes a good to go AK? If they are so great and reliable, yet nobody can wrench on them, what does an ak need to go from stock to ready to rock? And how would you go about doing that anyway?

[QuietShootr]

Correction: aluminum rear sling hoop13942

That MASH hook is going to eat through the loop eventually.

[Dlo250]

That MASH hook is going to eat through the loop eventually.

I'm hoping that's not the reason FN put 2 loops back there...

[QuietShootr]

I'm hoping that's not the reason FN put 2 loops back there...

It's a known issue with most FN weapons, from rifles to MGs. Get the BFG wire adapter or use paracord. MASH hooks are stainless, the sling loop is aluminum...you do the math.

[DeltaSierra]

Well not all axes are created equal either, just ask any serious woodsman.

It's the same reason why I would take a Colt 6920 over a DPMS, Bushmaster, Olympic, etc. ad nauseum. I'm sure a Ruger SR9 is a nifty little 9mm but why spend the same amount of money on a design that has never seen combat or global LE use such as the M9, G17, P226, etc.?

It boils down to mil spec vs. commercial, proven vs. un-proven.

Thats why I own a Gränsfors Bruks axe, instead of your local Ace Hardware axe.... :D

I don't want to be put into a position of having to choose between an SKS and a Mini, but....



You need a three ton press to replace barrels on an AK, multi caliber conversions are unheard of, and a top notch,ready to go AK cannot be had for the same price as a COlt/LMT/BCM/DD.

The ARs strength is modularity. The AK is woefully lacking on this.

(cough)


This bears repeating, in case someone didn't get it the first time around....

I've had my share of AKs (to include Russian AKs, from Izhmash...) and I sometimes wonder why I keep any of them...

[Dlo250]

No I get it. Thanks for clearing a lot of ak questions up.

[Jippo]

You need a three ton press to replace barrels on an AK, multi caliber conversions are unheard of, and a top notch,ready to go AK cannot be had for the same price as a COlt/LMT/BCM/DD.

The ARs strength is modularity. The AK is woefully lacking on this.

AK is not tactical barbie, it's a military weapon. There is very little need to change barrels in the military.

Also AK barrels can be changed by a normal competent gunsmith. Without a 3-ton press. :)

[Littlelebowski]

AK is not tactical barbie, it's a military weapon. There is very little need to change barrels in the military.

Also AK barrels can be changed by a normal competent gunsmith. Without a 3-ton press. :)

I'll have to tell the American troops who have been using the "tactical Barbie" weapons for 11 years in actual combat that they don't need any of the stuff they attach to their weapons according to you or maybe you understand lasers, lights, grips, and ergonomics?

[sinlessorrow]

AK is not tactical barbie, it's a military weapon. There is very little need to change barrels in the military.

Also AK barrels can be changed by a normal competent gunsmith. Without a 3-ton press. :)

Part in red would be correct if you never use your gun. Barrels get burnt out, what do you do then? throw the gun away and get a new one?

[09fatbob]

It's AMERICAN, nuff said

[96 SS]

The ARs strength is modularity. The AK is woefully lacking on this.

Totally agree with this statement. Though lots of work is being done here, it will never be the same modularity as the AR platform.


Part in red would be correct if you never use your gun. Barrels get burnt out, what do you do then? throw the gun away and get a new one?

Simply put: yes.

[Jippo]

I'll have to tell the American troops who have been using the "tactical Barbie" weapons for 11 years in actual combat that they don't need any of the stuff they attach to their weapons according to you or maybe you understand lasers, lights, grips, and ergonomics?

Attaching those things to an AK hasn't been a problem in the previous 11 years. Here's my personal weapon:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v355/Jippo01/Guns/IMG_5015-1.jpg


Part in red would be correct if you never use your gun. Barrels get burnt out, what do you do then? throw the gun away and get a new one?

Replace it? Maybe?

There is nothing mystical about replacing an AK barrel. It is a job any competent weaponsmith can do with very few tools. It is just not user replaceable, which is something very few units have the need for.

[Draufganger]

Part in red would be correct if you never use your gun. Barrels get burnt out, what do you do then? throw the gun away and get a new one?
No, you pass it on to your units armorer and get new one from armory, thats how its done. Also, im pretty sure that is how its done in US MIL also, even with AR's, theres no f'n way they let Joe the average grunt to swap barrels and stuff like that even on a AR.

[sinlessorrow]

No, you pass it on to your units armorer and get new one from armory, thats how its done. Also, im pretty sure that is how its done in US MIL also, even with AR's, theres no f'n way they let Joe the average grunt to swap barrels and stuff like that even on a AR.

That is true, but with the AK you cant just un-torque the barrel nut and put a new one on.

[Jippo]

That is true, but with the AK you cant just un-torque the barrel nut and put a new one on.

That actually depends on the model. On Finnish guns the barrel & receiver are threaded. Barrel is replaced by screwing the old one out and screwing a new one in.

On Russian AK's it isn't that much more difficult.

[Littlelebowski]

Attaching those things to an AK hasn't been a problem in the previous 11 years.

Kinda makes your "tactical Barbie" sneer hypocritical, don't you think?

[Jippo]

Kinda makes your "tactical Barbie" sneer hypocritical, don't you think?

Picatinny was so obvious that I thought you mean trillion types of RIS, buttstocks, etc. etc. that one has to keep switching about. Never crossed my mind that you didn't know that all sorts of picatinny things have been available for the AK for a long, long time.

[Littlelebowski]

Picatinny was so obvious that I thought you mean trillion types of RIS, buttstocks, etc. etc. that one has to keep switching about. Never crossed my mind that you didn't know that all sorts of picatinny things have been available for the AK for a long, long time.

I quite well know of these things, having a rail on my AK. I just think your sneer at ARs was stupid and adolescent considering you seem to understand the versatility of the weapon and its record in combat.

[Jippo]

At which point did I sneer at any other weapon?

Quite on the contrary it was you who claimed that AK lacks on modularity department. I am pretty sure I have all the modularity I need. I can quick-attach any mission essentials I can imagine to need on mine, ranging from NVD's, suppressors, lasers, and a variety of optical sights. I can replace the buttstock in 10 minutes and pistol grip grip or handguard in less.

If that is not enough for a military weapon, we are indeed getting in the realm of tactical barbies and playing games with our rifles.

[crusader377]

That actually depends on the model. On Finnish guns the barrel & receiver are threaded. Barrel is replaced by screwing the old one out and screwing a new one in.

On Russian AK's it isn't that much more difficult.

I think this debate on changing barrels on the AK is a bit silly. I don't think the Russians ever intended to change barrels on the AK outside of major arms depots and any AK needing a new barrel in the field would have been discarded. The AK was designed in direct response to the the lessons learned on the Eastern front in WWII. I read alot on the Eastern front in WWII and if you take a detailed look on how soviet units were organized in both WWII and the Cold War you can see there was very little emphasis on major field level repairs compared to western armies. Even tank and artillery units had very limited repair capabilities at battalion, regiment, and even division level. Basically combat units would do preventive maintence and minor repairs on their equipment and major repairs were handled at large centralized arms depots.

The Soviet Union wanted a very low maintenance, reliable, easy to mass produce, rifle that had alot of firepower and the AK was the perfect rifle for their needs. Modularity wasn't an issue with the Soviets and most of the limited modularity enhancements on the AK was an ad hoc response to western designs.

[Doc. Holiday]

The AK vs AR war will never end. Just like the war on terror and drugs.

[Jippo]

I think this debate on changing barrels on the AK is a bit silly.

Like I said: "There is very little need to change barrels in the military." It is not an issue.

What you quoted was only response to the claim that the barrel cannot be changed without heavy machinery.

But this much on topic of the thread. :) Why the hate guys?

[Moltke]

The AK vs AR war will never end. Just like the war on terror and drugs.

I declare this thread a victory in the name of the AR-15.

[DeltaSierra]

I declare this thread a victory in the name of the AR-15.

Thank you.

;)

[Doc. Holiday]

I declare this thread a victory in the name of the AR-15.

Not so fast there Homes... ;)

[Moose-Knuckle]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v355/Jippo01/Guns/IMG_5015-1.jpg


Jippo, that is a sweet Valmet. I wished we could still import rifles from your country. The Sako M95 is my "dream" rifle. :(

[crusader377]

Despite preferring the AR platform, I actually think the AK and AR are pretty even if you look at the big picture. Both rifles were designed and deployed to different requirements of their respective nations militaries and based on different lessons learned in combat. Without going into an overly long winded response, the AR was the right rifle for the professional U.S. military and the AK was the right rifle for the Soviets. Both rifles allowed the respective soldiers using it to fight to their best abilities.

If we had a bit of a role reversal, the AR platform would have been a worse option for the Soviets based on their doctrine and the AK would clearly be inferior in American hands over an M16.

Also, another thing that you have to remember in the AK vs AR debate is that the AK is at a generation older platform than the AR. The AK represents the first generation of rifles that were designed from WWII experience while the AR was developed 10 years later after our own misstep with adopting the M14.

[crusader377]

Like I said: "There is very little need to change barrels in the military." It is not an issue.

What you quoted was only response to the claim that the barrel cannot be changed without heavy machinery.

But this much on topic of the thread. :) Why the hate guys?

Agree on the barrel change. I doubt the Red Army even had a conversation on the issue when the AK was designed.

[montrala]

Agree on the barrel change. I doubt the Red Army even had a conversation on the issue when the AK was designed.

No. It is assault rifle, not machine gun. Does not need barrel change. By time barrel needs change, other parts need replacement as well.

Per current standards here, Polish assault rifle wz.96/06 Beryl (5.56 AK) must have zero parts failure and keep military accuracy requirement (5 MOA - with really crappy ammo) for at least of 10.000 rounds. Actually barrel is expected to keep within accuracy threshold for three times that (they start much better than 5 MOA from factory). Rifles out of this threshold come back to factory for rebuild.

If I would look for AR15 advantages over AK, it would not be in modularity. Modern AK can and actually is as "modular" as AR15( (if ability to add stuff is called modularity). However AR15 provides better ergonomy and "shootability". But (properly made) AK still excels in reliability and durability. With AK's it's like with AR15 - there is tons of junk, put together by some hacksaw gunsmithing companies for civi market and there is real, mil-spec stuff.

Just my 0.03PLN ;)

[Failure2Stop]

Modularity in thise sense has less to do with what you can bolt/zip-tie/duct tape to the weapon and more to do with parts interchange and maintenance at an individual, private ownership level.

What I can do with a modern gunshop/armory facility has little to do with what I can do in my garage. The standardization of the AR platform within the US far exceeds that of the imported AKs we see, and removal/replacement of major parts groups is inarguably easier with an AR. One can very easily go from a 10.5 "CQB" gun to a sub-MOA precision gun with the ease of pushing two pins. One can go from a stock GI trigger to a top of the line 2-stage (with proper and correct installation) in about 1 minute. A completely different stock can be put on by simply pulling the old one off and sliding a new one on the receiver extension. These things certainly can be done on the AK pattern guns, but they aren't nearly as easy or as consistenty across the various manufacturers.

Does this make the AK a terrible weapon? Hardly.
It is simply an aspect of the platform, just as certain limitations are inherent to the AR platform.

[montrala]

One can very easily go from a 10.5 "CQB" gun to a sub-MOA precision gun with the ease of pushing two pins.

From this point of view, you are certainly right. AR15 is a "LEGO" rifle. Not that replacing trigger or stock on AK is all that harder, if you have flat screwdriver. But AK was designed for different manufacturing standards. Even at FB Radom, where they make as much as they can on CNC machines, final hand fitting (bolt for example) is needed. So no happy home gusmithing with AK to swap everything what CC can buy.

However this quoted part is valid only from (US) legal point of view. Practically/technically this means you have two rifles - one CQB and one "precision". I know that US regulation do not see "upper" as a firearm, but technically upper actually can send projectile downrange w/o use of lower, while lower can be only used to bludgeon someone. But this still is modularity - you use same "trigger housing module" (like we call it here) for two different rifles.

[Doc Safari]

The AK vs AR war will never end. Just like the war on terror and drugs.

Truth!

I had to be convinced that the AR is superior to the AK after trudging through desert terrain in the summer heat with both weapons and appropriate mag vests, etc. The AR weighs roughly what a field-stripped AK's barreled receiver weighs. The mags and ammo of the AK weigh you down even with polymer mags and brass-cased rounds.

I can carry the AR and its mags a lot further and a lot longer. Lugging the AK around made me want to just carry a pistol.

[Jippo]

And a rant follows:

I resent "my rifle is better than your rifle" -discussions.

I think we can talk about certain aspects of rifles like ability to change barrels: does it take 1 minute, 10 minutes or 2 hours. That is fine, but if that makes a difference or not depends on user requirements. It may be required that the same gun must be capable to switch from a caliber to another in 5 minutes, in which case rank the first gun higher in this respect. Meaning that that particular weapon can score less than others in other requirements and still be the preferred choice for that particular user.

There is no "best" anywhere in the world, only shades of grey. Weapons are compromises and all of them have their pros & cons. There isn't a perfect weapon that works everywhere and what is needed depends in the end of the opinions of the end-user (or the committee deciding for the poor fellow). Open selection processes may give us a hint on the good and the bad sides of certain weapons in a controlled environment, but even they are not decisive on good and bad. I can make up a competition right here & now based on which Mosin Nagant will be the best assault rifle in the world. (yeah, I can. :) ) It all depends on requirements and the competition/test setting. Wrench is a poor hammer, but if one requirement in a hammer selection process is the ability to open bolts & nuts it will win a better hammer without that particular ability.

It'd be cool if we could respect & enjoy the weapons for what they are. It is cool to learn about weapons from different people coming from different backgrounds. I for one have learned a lot from this site among others.

Peace & love. :)

[orionz06]

I resent "my rifle is better than your rifle" -discussions.

I think we can talk about certain aspects of rifles like ability to change barrels: does it take 1 minute, 10 minutes or 2 hours. That is fine, but if that makes a difference or not depends on user requirements. It may be required that the same gun must be capable to switch from a caliber to another in 5 minutes, in which case rank the first gun higher in this respect. Meaning that that particular weapon can score less than others in other requirements and still be the preferred choice for that particular user.

There is no "best" anywhere in the world, only shades of grey. Weapons are compromises and all of them have their pros & cons. There isn't a perfect weapon that works everywhere and what is needed depends in the end of the opinions of the end-user (or the committee deciding for the poor fellow). Open selection processes may give us a hint on the good and the bad sides of certain weapons in a controlled environment, but even they are not decisive on good and bad. I can make up a competition right here & now based on which Mosin Nagant will be the best assault rifle in the world. (yeah, I can. :) ) It all depends on requirements and the competition/test setting. Wrench is a poor hammer, but if one requirement in a hammer selection process is the ability to open bolts & nuts it will win a better hammer without that particular ability.

It'd be cool if we could respect & enjoy the weapons for what they are. It is cool to learn about weapons from different people coming from different backgrounds. I for one have learned a lot from this site among others. Peace & love. :)


Wait, so you mean to say different people with different needs may come to different solutions to fulfill said needs?

Unpossible.

[Jippo]

Wait, so you mean to say different people with different needs may come to different solutions to fulfill said needs?

Unpossible.

I'm jumping off a cliff now....


















:D

[Doc. Holiday]

Wait, so you mean to say different people with different needs may come to different solutions to fulfill said needs?

Unpossible.

Haha! Yes! Thada boy!

[Failure2Stop]

Not that replacing trigger or stock on AK is all that harder, if you have flat screwdriver.

My experience with performing maintenance and furniture replacement with a few hundred AKs from different time periods and different manufacturing locations, as well as personal ownership of a few AK pattern rifles, indicates that while several will be similar, there will be a significant number that are not. Not an issue to a military force that buys stuff that they know works with their dimensions, but certainly a factor for the dude at home that wants to put a new stock on his Norinco.



However this quoted part is valid only from (US) legal point of view. Practically/technically this means you have two rifles - one CQB and one "precision". I know that US regulation do not see "upper" as a firearm, but technically upper actually can send projectile downrange w/o use of lower, while lower can be only used to bludgeon someone. But this still is modularity - you use same "trigger housing module" (like we call it here) for two different rifles.

Frankly, that's the audience I am addressing, and is the purpose of the thread in the first place.
Regardless, it doesn't matter what whosever government considers to be the "firearm", the parts are still the parts, and from a functional perspective, still switch in/out and on/off exactly the same.

And if you take any of my comments as "hatin'" on you, the AK, or the gun culture, you are mistaken. There are lots of ways to find the item that makes you happy. My comments here, late in the thread, are about the modularity comments that came in. The AR is demonstrably more "modular" than the AK. Whether or not that is a factor is up to the user.

[sinlessorrow]

From this point of view, you are certainly right. AR15 is a "LEGO" rifle. Not that replacing trigger or stock on AK is all that harder, if you have flat screwdriver. But AK was designed for different manufacturing standards. Even at FB Radom, where they make as much as they can on CNC machines, final hand fitting (bolt for example) is needed. So no happy home gusmithing with AK to swap everything what CC can buy.

However this quoted part is valid only from (US) legal point of view. Practically/technically this means you have two rifles - one CQB and one "precision". I know that US regulation do not see "upper" as a firearm, but technically upper actually can send projectile downrange w/o use of lower, while lower can be only used to bludgeon someone. But this still is modularity - you use same "trigger housing module" (like we call it here) for two different rifles.

Thats true but being in the US our uppers are not serialized so we can have any number of them, and if the lower(the actual firearm due to having the serial number) if its a SBR our options are only limited to the size of our budget in terms of modularity to the platform.

The AK on the other hand does not have the luxury of popping two pins and going from a 8.5" SBR to a 18" SPR.

[signkutter]

Thats true but being in the US our uppers are not serialized so we can have any number of them, and if the lower(the actual firearm due to having the serial number) if its a SBR our options are only limited to the size of our budget in terms of modularity to the platform.

The AK on the other hand does not have the luxury of popping two pins and going from a 8.5" SBR to a 18" SPR.

An AUG can do it even easier.. and faster :D

[Magic_Salad0892]

An AUG can do it even easier.. and faster :D

Two words. Zero shift. ;)

[signkutter]

Two words. Zero shift. ;)

Shift would be minimal. Who really runs around with a whole extra upper? One the other hand walking about with another barrel is perfectly feasible. Just messing around though , no knocking the AR platform and the wonderfulness it has evolved into

[sinlessorrow]

Shift would be minimal. Who really runs around with a whole extra upper? One the other hand walking about with another barrel is perfectly feasible. Just messing around though , no knocking the AR platform and the wonderfulness it has evolved into

Zero shift would be more than minimal. Each barrel would have to be rezerod/

[MountainRaven]

Except if you have a good optic, you can just adjust clicks to rezero (ie: pre-zero both barrels. When you swap barrels, adjust to the pre-determined zero). Or you can use a good optic mount like a LaRue and simply swap optics.

Not a lot faster than an extra upper, but definitely lighter.

[Safetyhit]

Shift would be minimal. Who really runs around with a whole extra upper?


It's done by some overseas often, but not practical for most no doubt.

[SteyrAUG]

Zero shift would be more than minimal. Each barrel would have to be rezerod/

In most cases if you are going from a 16" to something like the 24" Hbar, you are also changing optics.

[Magic_Salad0892]

In most cases if you are going from a 16" to something like the 24" Hbar, you are also changing optics.

It would be more practical to just pop two pins and flip your upper out. (Not carry it on your person, nobody really does that, but if you had an extra upper in a car or something, it'd be feasable. From a military standpoint you can substitute "car" for "helo/humvee/outpost/etc.")

[signkutter]

Zero shift would be more than minimal. Each barrel would have to be rezerod/

I will have to take your word for it. I have no experience in switching barrel legnths. I do know that I can take out my 16 inch barrel and remount it the impact point does not change... all the variables involved though I could see a completely different barrel changing POI very easily.

[sinlessorrow]

I will have to take your word for it. I have no experience in switching barrel legnths. I do know that I can take out my 16 inch barrel and remount it the impact point does not change... all the variables involved though I could see a completely different barrel changing POI very easily.

That is a bit different POI should barely shift if any at all if you remove and remount the same barrel as the optic is zero'd to that barrel/upper combo, but when going to a new barrel/upper combo it will require you to re zero the optic.

[Failure2Stop]

It has been my experience that removing a barrel and reinstalling it will result in a shift of zero. Sometimes that shift will be within 1 MOA, sometimes it will be much greater, and it is not always consistent. This applies to many different platforms.

It would be up to the user as to what "minimal" or "acceptable" would be, but given my example of going from a CQB gun to a precision gun, I would not accept more than a 1 MOA shift for the precision application. Add to that the zero shift incurred by removing and replacing an optic mount, and potential issues would be a bit more than I would accept with even the most consistent of these barrel change options.

On to the next part of the discussion:
Switching barrels & optics, or an entire upper receiver assembly mid-mission is silly. Possible, sure, but a lot more hassle than it's worth for most users. Rather, one could easily do the swap of the parts at home, or wherever the weapons/ammo storage point may be.

Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect.

[Magic_Salad0892]

It has been my experience that removing a barrel and reinstalling it will result in a shift of zero. Sometimes that shift will be within 1 MOA, sometimes it will be much greater, and it is not always consistent. This applies to many different platforms.

It would be up to the user as to what "minimal" or "acceptable" would be, but given my example of going from a CQB gun to a precision gun, I would not accept more than a 1 MOA shift for the precision application. Add to that the zero shift incurred by removing and replacing an optic mount, and potential issues would be a bit more than I would accept with even the most consistent of these barrel change options.

On to the next part of the discussion:
Switching barrels & optics, or an entire upper receiver assembly mid-mission is silly. Possible, sure, but a lot more hassle than it's worth for most users. Rather, one could easily do the swap of the parts at home, or wherever the weapons/ammo storage point may be.

Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect.

Kind of what I was getting at.

F2S, would I be right in saing that there would be zero shift stacking? As in for zero shift between optics, barrel, possibly ammo, and suppressor?

[Failure2Stop]

F2S, would I be right in saing that there would be zero shift stacking? As in for zero shift between optics, barrel, possibly ammo, and suppressor?

Yes. Not so much that there will be tolerance stacking but rather that there can be stacking. Would probably still be fine for sub-100 stuff with the better platforms, but nowhere near the surety of a complete upper with optics attached.

[Magic_Salad0892]

Yes. Not so much that there will be tolerance stacking but rather that there can be stacking. Would probably still be fine for sub-100 stuff with the better platforms, but nowhere near the surety of a complete upper with optics attached.

I understand. I'm gonna send you a PM real quick regarding tolerance stacking so I don't derail the thread.

ETA: Nevermind. My question answered itself when I was typing it.