AR vs. Other Assault Rifles. Why the hate? [Archive]

CPtheWightKnight

01-23-12, 01:03

Well, first, this is a great topic.

There are multiple factors that attribute to the "love" of the AR and the "hate" of other assault rifles.
1. nationality
2. culture
3. history/past experiences
4. function/adaptability/platform
5. niche
No doubt that only hit the tip of the iceberg but i'm not going to go into to much detail currently because i am quite tired.

Now addressing the points above.
1. The AR/M16/M4 has a great historical signifigance in the USA's combative history just as the AK has historical signifigance in Russia and countless nations in Africa. The exposure to nationalist beliefs like "ours is better than yours because it's american" and similar statements are a product of pride or competetiveness.
2. Culture blends with nationality. If you recall early american history (i'm sure you do) a musket was an essential tool to hunt game. Alot of pride was put into ones skills in marksmanship and ability to hunt game. Young men of the era could consider their ability to use a musket proficiently and provide for their family as a right of passage.
3. History/past experiences can play a major role in ones preference of a rifle. I grew up around firearms (my father worked for various shooting ranges and stores for nearly 20 years) , my fondest momories of my childhood revolve around the time i spent with my father at the range and people/culture that revolved around it. I thoroughly enjoyed shooting my fathers AR so that also attributes to my love for the platform.
4. The capabilities of the rifle also play a great role in why some people feel absolute about why they think a rifle is "better" than the rest. Personally i think that the AR platform is the most versatile and adaptive weapon system avaliable for the common man, with the AK coming in second. The ability to personalize a weapon to fit your needs is again, in my opinion, a very important aspect of choosing a weapon system. People can argue about whats "better" all day (and they do), but it's just an opinion, not absolute fact. Peoples needs are different but that doesn't stop their urge to be "better" or "more knowledgeable" and spout this "i'm right and your wrong" mentality we see so much of today.
5. Niche. Kind of self explanitory. Each weapon system has its advantages and weaknesses and it is quite easy to take an understanding of those advantages and weakenesses and say "this is good for this job and that is good for that job", and then it comes down to personal needs and preference again.

Anyways, thats my relatively quick two cents.

Mr blasty

01-23-12, 01:07

Really I cant think of any way in which another rifle can beat the AR for 90% of what anybody would be doing with a firearm. Better ergos, just as reliable, easy to setup optics, inherently accurate, inline design, minimal parts, easy to mfg., easy to use, the most modular rifle available, easy to maintain with common tools, etc. etc etc...... The list just keeps going and going for the good and the bad really isn't any worse than any of the others. It really does seem to do it all well.

CumbiaDude

01-23-12, 01:40

I think CPtheWightKnight got a lot of it. My take on it:

1. Not Invented Here/National pride/Patriotism, etc. M16 is used by the US, US is the best country, therefore the M16/M4/AR/etc is the best gun. People can be on a continuum anywhere from absolutely dogmatic zeal over the AR to informed opinion but still liking it best because it's American, and who doesn't love their country? :D

2. Propaganda. Similar to #1, and by propaganda I don't mean lies necessarily. Obviously, you want your soldiers to feel confident in their weapons and soothe their worries about the enemy. Hopefully not to the point of outright deception, but just emphasizing what your weapon is good at and pointing out flaws in the enemy's weaponry. This is where the "AR = accurate, AK = inaccurate" stuff comes in. It's true, ARs have higher potential for maximum accuracy than AKs. Doesn't necessarily mean the enemy's weapon is less effective (does the AR have better practical accuracy? A different debate). If anyone is interested, there is a WWII training film on the MG-42 (Hilter's buzzsaw) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oyj-ZHXFKQI) that is exactly what I'm talking about. They lay it all out - "Yeah, it fires fast. Yes, it sounds scary. It's not invincible, here is how you destroy it."

3. Exotic/foreign coolness. This is the opposite of #1. Things you DON'T see every day are cooler! The "bad guy's gun" is cooler. The exotic coolness of a particular item can weigh more than the patriotic feelings of the other thing.

4. MY item is best, no matter what YOU say. People justify their own previous purchases and get their pride tied into it. With people making purchases each day, new people need to defend their purchases each day.

Now for full disclosure: I'm way into Soviet weapons and Russian stuff in general. Own a (Yugoslavian-made) SKS, two Soviet Mosin-Nagants, and two AKs. Own zero ARs. The ARs are great weapons, I know they're more than reliable enough, very accurate, can be customized up the wazoo, so I'm not blindly suckered into #4 up there :D They're just soulless to me, and therefore less interesting than the AK (so obviously I AM susceptible to #3 ;) ) I love studying the minor variations of among different countries, years, etc. Can't get that with an AR, but I still like reading about the technical specifics (which is why I'm mostly only in the Technical Discussion AR subforum).

Failure2Stop

01-23-12, 01:42

120mm

01-23-12, 06:21

Try applying pretty much any other 5.56 weapon to full spectrum use and their shortcomings are readily discovered.
There are some that are ok, but nothing that really outperforms it overall, and quite a few that fall well below in one or more areas of application.
Is the standard AR perfect? Hell no, improving ambidexterous ergonomics and charging handle location along with bolt-hold open for one-handed use would be great, but would require a complete redesign of the system.
I have absolutely no hatred toward any weapon system, just a realistic examination of performance and expectation coupled with knowledge and parts availability when it comes to platform adoption.

I agree with F2S on all the above.

The AR also benefits from a large pool of private owners, known as the US shooting community, who push the envelope on how good it can get.

That means the platform gets shot, a lot, by folks who are willing to break them, so the shortcomings of the system either get addressed, or become well enough known to work with.

Personally, I am unaware of any other platform that can be shot to destruction, then completely rebuilt to new, with common to no tools.

Also, rifles have reached a point where it is really tough to make anything but very incremental progress.

rob_s

01-23-12, 06:28

Many of us are just tired of all the promises of "new hotness" only to discover that it doesn't do anything better than "old busted" and in fact more often comes at a price, whether financial, reliability, support, etc.

Unless the point of this thread was to get all dr. phil on things, in which case I don't know "why", but I could go on for days about the intentional contrarians that just prefer to be a special flower.

rob_s

01-23-12, 06:31

Also, rifles have reached a point where it is really tough to make anything but very incremental progress.

yet amazingly the enginerds seem incapable of making any progress in any one area without making something worse in another.

This shouldn't be hard. All we want is a gun that is exactly like the AR in every functional way (functional meaning external, not internal, and meaning keep the modularity) with true ambidextrous, mirrored, controls incorporating some increased ergonomics, that is lighter, cheaper, and more readily available.

what's so hard about that?

120mm

01-23-12, 06:57

MegademiC

01-23-12, 09:40

yet amazingly the enginerds seem incapable of making any progress in any one area without making something worse in another.

This shouldn't be hard. All we want is a gun that is exactly like the AR in every functional way (functional meaning external, not internal, and meaning keep the modularity) with true ambidextrous, mirrored, controls incorporating some increased ergonomics, that is lighter, cheaper, and more readily available.

what's so hard about that?

I think the best thing is what knights and colt (cm/sp901) are trying to do with the somewhat redesigned lower that takes standard uppers... now about the CHEAPER part... good luck.

I think the only way to cut cost would be to change materials and anything cheaper seems to not be as good structure-wise. Anything stronger and lighter than aluminum may be too brittle or will be a lot more expensive. Every industry wants something stronger and lighter, so it wont be cheaper due to demand, unless something gets a huge scale up real quick. Plastics bend too much, or are brittle, ceramics are too brittle, and nanocrystalline metals are very expensive, but would be very light. Its more of an economy issue than an engineering issue, it seems.

You could make something similar to an ar-180 cheaper, but you lose in other areas, as already stated.

OP. From what I can tell, ars are most loved since :
1 - made in U.S.
2 - LARGE support system
3 - reliable as any other(if made right)
4 - Best accuracy potential with match barrels
5- ergos and speed. They can be set up to be fully ambi and can be faster to operate than any other gun out there.

The next best thing we have here IMO is the AK which has a short handguard, slower reloads, and its barely any cheaper for a quality one. Some people prefer them, but most lean towards the AR. I honestly dont see much improvement left for firearms. I think the next step is gonna be a totally different weapon (small-arms rail guns maybe? And thats gonna be a LONG time).

Doc Safari

01-23-12, 09:59

I made a journey back to AR's after a 10+ year lack of owning one. I always thought the weapon was too fragile, that is, until I watched Larry Vickers' torture test one, and after reading the "Filthy 14" article in SWAT magazine. I was sold on the rifle again, even if the carbine version will need parts replacements sooner than the full length rifle version. Light weight, accuracy, low recoil, and the ability to customize it any way you want made me sell off all of the rest of my collection in favor of it.

I've owned many other types of so-called assault weapons and battle rifles over the years, and all of them (including the AR) have their shortcomings, but I went back to the AR because it didn't suffer the same problems as others:

HK91: Too heavy and stout recoil
FAL: Too long and unwieldy
M14: Heavy
SKS: poor ability to upgrade to detacable mags
AK: poor ergonomics, accuracy, gun is heavy, no bolt hold-open

I'd like to say some more about the AK: I really tried to like it. It supposedly has legendary reliability but the poor quality control of a lot of makers negates this to a degree. I can't tell you how many I saw with canted sights before I bought mine. The US-made compliance parts are often crappy, too, as are the "conversions" of sporterized versions made to be legal first and quality second.

Yet I can buy a top tier M4 today, not do a damn thing to it except load a magazine and fire it, and I have the assurance that I have something that is the same quality as the real military version. I don't trust any US-compliant AK to be that.

Weekend before last, I shot my BCM M4 side-by-side with my AK. My M4 has shot right at 1,000 rounds without a single malfunction. Of course the AK's reliability is all that as well.

At 50 yards I shot my M4 with Aimpoint T1 mounted and could not miss. I only hit the target with the AK about 75% of the time. Whether it was the AK's accuracy, the ammo, the long trigger, crappy sights, or just me.....how would you like to miss about 25% of the time on the two-way range?

That was the kicker that made me decide to sell the AK and not maintain one in my collection anymore.

As far as the M4 goes, I'm beginning to prefer the pencil barrel version of that weapon just for the weight savings.

crusader377

01-23-12, 10:23

OP. From what I can tell, ars are most loved since :
1 - made in U.S.
2 - LARGE support system
3 - reliable as any other(if made right)
4 - Best accuracy potential with match barrels
5- ergos and speed. They can be set up to be fully ambi and can be faster to operate than any other gun out there.

The next best thing we have here IMO is the AK which has a short handguard, slower reloads, and its barely any cheaper for a quality one. Some people prefer them, but most lean towards the AR. I honestly dont see much improvement left for firearms. I think the next step is gonna be a totally different weapon (small-arms rail guns maybe? And thats gonna be a LONG time).

I think this is a very good list on why American's prefer the AR and I would like to add one more. America does have a relatively large veterans community and I know that when I first decided to own a civilian semi-auto rifle 4 years ago, I picked an M4 because that is what I was issued in the Army and it held a nostalgic value to me. I don't think I'm unique regarding this and I do have other friends of mine who served in the military and went with an AR pattern rifle when they bought a rifle of their own as well.

scottryan

01-23-12, 13:30

Because it is the best combination of accuracy, ergonomics, weight, modularity, adaptability, and reliability of any infantry rifle.

I have used and own almost every rifle ever to exist and I would never use any of them over an AR-15.

SteyrAUG

01-23-12, 13:57

I own a large variety of 5.56 rifles.

My first grab in any serious situation is going to be something like a Colt 6520, and it isn't because I hate my other rifles. Some have advantages over the AR system but when you talk about total package I don't think anything beats the AR system.

Javelin

01-23-12, 14:19

OK.... I'll play...

Due to some ridiculous laws in place in the US, we cannot get most types of foreign weapons. Considering this, it is little wonder that people prefer the weapon that they are more familiar with, and that is available for civilian purchase.

Given the choice, I would like to have any number of weapons, but considering what is available for civilian purchase, the AR is really the only logical choice for hard use, as it is really one of the only military grade weapons in the US that has any real user-support on a sustainable level.

Not only that, but the fact is that the AR-15/M-16 is a world-wide respected design that has performed well over a long service life in a wide variety of conditions, while retaining good ergonomics and sighting capabilities.

Good post.

And let's not forget that folks over the pond and in most other countries envy the military Colt AR platform. In many undeveloped countries (such as Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc) merely owning one is a symbol of power and authority. They are more fanatical than even some of the most rabid Hk owners here in the US.

:laugh:

Pi3

01-23-12, 14:45

It's the local wine of the country. I wanted something that has readily available parts, that everyone knows how to work on, that is common. After lots of research, I got the basic lmt 14.5"/ fa bcg. At 6.2 lbs it does most of what I want. This site & the list were a tremendous help. Ambidextrous controls & a folding stock would be nice.

Jaws

01-23-12, 15:30

OK.... I'll play...

Due to some ridiculous laws in place in the US, we cannot get most types of foreign weapons. Considering this, it is little wonder that people prefer the weapon that they are more familiar with, and that is available for civilian purchase.

I was trying to understand this for a while.
I live in Canada and our firearms laws straight out stink, yet for some reason US import legislation is much worse than ours. It's puzling how a country with such a strong suport for the right to own firearms can have such a messed up import legislation.
Part of the problem is that people expect every foreign company that makes firearms, is going to build factories in US and make every product they want inside US. This rarely works, and only very large companies, that can secure big contracts can afford that.

The other problem I see is that, when it comes to import legislation, the US firearms industry works hand in hand with the liberals. They work against you.

If all firearms suporters would work togheter, in a Country like USA, with such a strong community, this import laws could be fixed in less than a year.

alaskacop

01-23-12, 16:01

Doc Safari

01-23-12, 16:05

...people tend to give me reactions ranging from mild curiousity to sheer horror (what the hell is THAT abonination?). I can expect this from other LEO's because most of them are not gun nuts and generally only know one system, usually because of prior military experience or because an AR is the first "assault rifle" they have been issued. What surprises me is when I attend a shooting match and fellow gun nuts give me those responses....

I hate to admit it but I've encountered outright bigotry toward AK's from some AR owners.

If I hear the phrase "crappy commie rifle" one more time.....

And you'd think talking to some of these guys that you must be an Al Qaeda sympathizer or a gangbanger or Mexican cartel member just for owning one.

rob_s

01-23-12, 16:16

What surprises me is when I attend a shooting match and fellow gun nuts give me those responses....

I wouldn't do that...

Unless I beat you. :p

SteyrAUG

01-23-12, 18:15

Great responses and I tend to agree with most of the same reasons on the pros to the AR system. I suppose the reason I posted this question is because I tend to use a different system for work and play and have found that people tend to give me reactions ranging from mild curiousity to sheer horror (what the hell is THAT abonination?). I can expect this from other LEO's because most of them are not gun nuts and generally only know one system, usually because of prior military experience or because an AR is the first "assault rifle" they have been issued. What surprises me is when I attend a shooting match and fellow gun nuts give me those responses....

I don't think there is anything wrong with the HK33, Steyr AUG, SIG 550/551 or AKM variants. And each has some advantage over the AR rifles. I just think when taken as a whole, the AR is the best "all in one" rifle. And at least in this country a more practical choice in terms of mags, parts and cost.

tresmonos

01-23-12, 18:45

All we want is a gun that is exactly like the AR in every functional way (functional meaning external, not internal, and meaning keep the modularity) with true ambidextrous, mirrored, controls incorporating some increased ergonomics, that is lighter, cheaper, and more readily available.

Speaking from a different industry (but from experience with manufacturing and engineering):
1) The consumer market strips the specialized needs of this forum's audience in terms of the sustainable total market capitalization.
2) The commercial market rewards manufacturers that produce product with minimal engineering resources and quality that is unacceptable to this forum's target audience.
3) Gov. contracts (when compared to the commercial market) generally do not reward efficiency.

Then there is the acceptable quality hurdle (perceived and real) the Stoner platform overcame with years of development. Maybe the 'better alternative' is already out there and 'we' just don't realize it yet. I cringe at the amount of resources and failure analysis it took to develop what is generally considered a 'proven platform.'

Submariner

01-23-12, 19:57

If I hear the phrase "crappy commie rifle" one more time.....

On a US battlefield, the Yankees aren't issued crappy commie rifles with crappy commie magazines.

If you think you will find crappy commie battlefield pick-up, put down the hopium pipe. :stop:

120mm

01-23-12, 20:53

On a US battlefield, the Yankees aren't issued crappy commie rifles with crappy commie magazines.

If you think you will find crappy commie battlefield pick-up, put down the hopium pipe. :stop:

I'm not sure I fully understand your point, but I am currently issued a Serbian M92 "Krink-alike" and I happen to spend quite a bit of time out in a current battlefield.

I would trade it out for a 10.5 inch barreled M4 in a heartbeat.

BTW, I just do not get the ignorance of some Americans. Former Eastern Bloc troops are some of our best allies. Some of them are even less "commie" than us "Murricans". The Czech Republic comes to mind as a place where "Murricans" could learn a thing or two from. And as far as I can see, the AK hasn't been a "commie" rifle for a couple decades.

Alaskapopo

01-23-12, 21:10

RyanB

01-24-12, 01:06

The ergonomics, accuracy, light weight and modularity of the M4 makes it the best of its type. I have experience with the exotic AKs like the Galil and Sig 552 as well as 9X series HKs and the ACR. The M4 is the best.

alaskacop

01-24-12, 02:51

There are a lot of good weapon systems out there, but to be frank the AR is the rifle but which they all are judged. It is the yard stick. It may not be the best in every area but when taken as a whole it is the best. The bullpups that my freind is so fond of are an excellent concept but the excecution always leaves something to be desired.
1. Trigger pulls are terrible to ok at best.
2. Accuracy is usually just acceptable not stellar.
3. reloads are slow and you can time them with a sun dial. Many are not ambidextrious.

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

I have observed that some leo's chose guns that are not AR's simply for the cool factor. There is nothing wrong with that as long as said officer/rifle performs the role adiquately. The main point being the reason the AR platform is so popular is because it is the best mousetrap going right now. Perhaps in the future that will change.
Pat

:ph34r:
By "some" Alaskapopo really means "me" as I have encountered only 5 LEO's that do not use an AR system and only two (including me) that use bullpups on duty. Once I get one of my A3's up and running we will see if I STILL beat him in our qualification runs. We would all love the "cool" factor in our guns but I would never sacrifice reliability or accuracy for plain looks. I choose an AUG system because I really like it. That translates to a higher confidence in its use (as Alaskapopo knows well). Still, he can't help but give me sh%% because I am not eating, sleeping AR's....

Prehaps I should rephrase the question. As we move further away from (and hopefully never again) the AWB, do you see the US firearms industry supporting non-AR style "evil black rifles"? It is very very clear that there is plenty of interest in them (as evident in the A3, Travor and AK systems as well as HK "clones"). Of course, we have to be careful that screw ups (ACR) and lack of QC (MSAR) don't occurr...

Alaskapopo

01-24-12, 03:06

:ph34r:
By "some" Alaskapopo really means "me" as I have encountered only 5 LEO's that do not use an AR system and only two (including me) that use bullpups on duty. Once I get on of my A3's up and running we will see if I STILL beat him in our qualification runs...

Prehaps I should rephrase the question. As we move further away from (and hopefully never again) the AWB, do you see the US firearms industry supporting non-AR style "evil black rifles"? It is very very clear that there is plenty of interest in them (as evident in the A3, Travor and AK systems as well as HK "clones"). Of course, we have to be careful that screw ups (ACR) and lack of QC (MSAR) don't occurr...

You did get me on a rifle qualification once or twice and I am proud of that. As the instructor if you beat me it means I am doing a good job. However your success on the rifle qualificaitons was in spite of the bullpup you use not because of it.

I am also all for more choices on the market place. But the simple fact is the AR platform is still the best thing going and that is evidenced by those who chose to use them and their performance wtih that system. Most of the worlds best shooters use AR's that is both in the tactical side and on the competition side of the fence. I am not saying this will be the case forever and perhaps there are better designs out there just around the corner. But at this time the AR is still the king. The AR is easier to shoot well which is why I believe you are using your Noveske for three gun instead of your MSAR or AUG, A three gun match is far more demanding than the rifle qualificaiton I put together.)
Like I said earlier the concept of a bullpup is good its just the execution that has turned up lacking so far. The concept being a compact carbine with a longer barrel in a small over all package. The down side is practical accuracy and slow reloads. For me I would rather carry a bigger gun that I can hit with vs a smaller cooler looking one that is harder to hit with.

As for giving you shit. I am happy that you are happy with your MSAR and AUG's and I think they are an acceptable choice for a patrol rifle. However I don't believe their the best choice. Different strokes for different folks. Kind of how I feel about Eddie's XD in 40sw as his duty pistol. Will it work sure but do I feel its the best choice no. But its his choice not mine.
Pat

alaskacop

01-24-12, 03:14

You did get me on a rifle qualification once or twice and I am proud of that. As the instructor if you beat me it means I am doing a good job. However your success on the rifle qualificaitons was in spite of the bullpup you use not because of it.

I am also all for more choices on the market place. But the simple fact is the AR platform is still the best thing going and that is evidenced by those who chose to use them and their performance wtih that system. Most of the worlds best shooters use AR's that is both in the tactical side and on the competition side of the fence. I am not saying this will be the case forever and perhaps there are better designs out there just around the corner. But at this time the AR is still the king. The AR is easier to shoot well which is why I believe you are using your Noveske for three gun instead of your MSAR or AUG, A three gun match is far more demanding than the rifle qualificaiton I put together.)
Like I said earlier the concept of a bullpup is good its just the execution that has turned up lacking so far. The concept being a compact carbine with a longer barrel in a small over all package. The down side is practical accuracy and slow reloads. For me I would rather carry a bigger gun that I can hit with vs a smaller cooler looking one that is harder to hit with.
Pat

:D knew that would get him going :D

This was never a thread about "my gun is better than your gun". I am just posting a question about why the gun culture is so hands off on any design not AR related? Clearly there are times when an AR is by far the best choice but that is not want I and trying to pose to members....:nono:

Alaskapopo

01-24-12, 03:21

:D knew that would get him going :D

This was never a thread about "my gun is better than your gun". I am just posting a question about why the gun culture is so hands off on any design not AR related? Clearly there are times when an AR is by far the best choice but that is not want I and trying to pose to members....:nono:

People gravitate towards what works and that is why I think the AR is so popular. It simply does a good job. Like I said I am all for new designs coming out and I am even contemplating purchasing a SCAR 17. The reason being it is one of the most tested .308 platforms out there right now not because it looks nice. In fact I think it looks like a pig. If you come up with a gun design that clearly out peforms an AR on many levels for a price that is not twice as much you will have people converting over in droves.

At the end of the day however I think its fine if people chose a gun design that they are comfortable with even if it is inferrior to the AR assuming its reliable and accurate enough to do the job. There is something to be said for perception. If you feel that the Aug gives you an advantage that will give you more confidence if you ever do indeed need to use it. Confidence is a good thing and can make the difference between winning and losing. That is why I don't feel its good to push standardized pistols and weapons onto people unless you have to because of logistics.
Pat

alaskacop

01-24-12, 03:40

I wouldn't do that...

Unless I beat you. :p

As a middle level "C" class shooter myself, you probably would beat me in most competative circles. I do so wish I had longer "warm" seasons to get more practice time in.....

rob_s

01-24-12, 05:02

:D knew that would get him going :D

This was never a thread about "my gun is better than your gun". I am just posting a question about why the gun culture is so hands off on any design not AR related? Clearly there are times when an AR is by far the best choice but that is not want I and trying to pose to members....:nono:

From my perspective, I would ask "why is the gun culture so insistent on sub-standard choices?"

I've run a shooter or two here and there, and while no professional instructor I've supervised a LOT of rounds downrange, and certainly more than your average bear. To date I haven't heard a single cogent argument from the contrarians as to why they insist on coming out with Dr. Strangelove. Sometimes they can't even settle on their one single weirdness and instead prefer to rotate their weirdness month to month.

I don't give a damn what anyone shoots, but don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining either. We have a couple guys that came out that would just shrug their shoulders and say "meh, I like shooting different guns" or "I just don't want to be another guy with an AR". OK, rock on with your bad self (onion ring), but none of these guys has ever performed to a high standard, and most have turned in scores lower of other guys that shoot less well (in terms of bullseye shooting) than those that shoot the "boring old AR". We even had one shooter that would CHEAT to make up for his bad choice in firearms and the time it cost him in manipulations.

I never had anyone explain away their oddball choices, and I never saw anyone with an oddball choice overcome the shortcomings of their need to be different.

WillBrink

01-24-12, 06:40

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?

If they hate other assault rifles it = they really don't know shit about assault rifles. One may prefer the AR platform due to it's many pros/strengths, but the world is full of great rifles, like the FAL, G3, and of course AK and so forth. Man that limits himself to one tool, is ultimately limited by that tool.

MarkG

01-24-12, 06:50

rob_s

01-24-12, 06:50

If they hate other assault rifles it = they really don't know shit about assault rifles. One may prefer the AR platform due to it's many pros/strengths, but the world is full of great rifles, like the FAL, G3, and of course AK and so forth. Man that limits himself to one tool, is ultimately limited by that tool.

meh.

I'll take quantifiable performance over zen cliches anyday.

If guy can PERFORM with his chosen anachronism, or acknowledges that he's simply out there to have fun, I got no issue. But when people choose to shoot something other than the standard, simply BECAUSE it's the standard, and then suffer in terms of performances...
:suicide:

I shot an AK for a year. While not the far reaches of "weird", it was something other than the standard. I had clear goals for myself for that year, a definitive reason for doing it, and by the end of that year I was holding my own against ARs both in classes and matches. When Pat Rogers told me I could add ten seconds to the par time (or maybe it was 5) for the Mod Navy Qual because I was shooting an AK I refused, and I still came in high or second high shooter. Against everyone else on the line that was shooting an AR. But you know what? my own performance was still better, faster, and more accurate with the AR even after essentially not touching one for a whole year.

alaskacop

01-24-12, 07:14

If they hate other assault rifles it = they really don't know shit about assault rifles. One may prefer the AR platform due to it's many pros/strengths, but the world is full of great rifles, like the FAL, G3, and of course AK and so forth. Man that limits himself to one tool, is ultimately limited by that tool.

I guess this was the point I was trying to make. Ridiculous laws, regulations and executive orders have eroded our choices in firearms over the years. The 89 ban in particular really put a stop in many many quality firearms we as americans could get and the 94 crime bill reduced our selection even further as you all know (I was too young to even notice or consider the effects or either as well as; Alaskapopo put it; a "screaming liberal" at the time). From 1994 fast forward ten years of AWB and you get vertially no development in any new systems because of the limitations placed on industry thanks to Clinton and other "concerned parents" with the exception on the AR platform which has seen tremendous improvements especially in the past few years. My hope is that individuals, companies and the industry will take notice that some of us are tired of eating oranges (even if some of them are very good) and want to have apples, grapes and other delicious fruits to try too.

Eurodriver

01-24-12, 07:42

I'm not sure I fully understand your point, but I am currently issued a Serbian M92 "Krink-alike" and I happen to spend quite a bit of time out in a current battlefield.

I would trade it out for a 10.5 inch barreled M4 in a heartbeat.

BTW, I just do not get the ignorance of some Americans. Former Eastern Bloc troops are some of our best allies. Some of them are even less "commie" than us "Murricans". The Czech Republic comes to mind as a place where "Murricans" could learn a thing or two from. And as far as I can see, the AK hasn't been a "commie" rifle for a couple decades.

He said "On a US Battlefield"

Meaning, in the United States of America...as in, a battle on our homeland.

Unless we are picking up ammo or magazines off the enemy (which I'm not sure how we'd do that unless we're winning in which case our military would be doing all the work) we would be best suited to using the AR platform.

Edit: This is what he was saying, I believe, it has nothing to do with how I feel.

WillBrink

01-24-12, 09:51

meh.

I'll take quantifiable performance over zen cliches anyday.

I don't think we disagree here. You're experience with the platform far exceeds mine, so I will bow to that expertise if I'm out of my lane here.

Quantifiable an essential component to be sure. I, like many, feel all things considered, the 1911 is the finest platform around for performance and I always had my best scores shooting it, and I'll sing it's praises with the best of 'em, but I also recognize other platforms have their strengths/uses, and not want to be a 1911 only shooter, and the fact another gun now fits my needs better, I have switched predominantly to the M&P. Slight drop in quantifiable scores for me, but the other pluses outweigh it for me at this time.

Ergo, one can identify the standard for a given use/need/outcome, but that does not mean others may not have their pros/cons and or fit a specific rec better, etc, and ignoring that reality to pray to the alter of the AR (or 1911) is short sighted and potentially limiting, at least in my view.

rob_s

01-24-12, 10:28

I don't think we disagree here. You're experience with the platform far exceeds mine, so I will bow to that expertise if I'm out of my lane here.

Quantifiable an essential component to be sure. I, like many, feel all things considered, the 1911 is the finest platform around for performance and I always had my best scores shooting it, and I'll sing it's praises with the best of 'em, but I also recognize other platforms have their strengths/uses, and not want to be a 1911 only shooter, and the fact another gun now fits my needs better, I have switched predominantly to the M&P. Slight drop in quantifiable scores for me, but the other pluses outweigh it for me at this time.

Ergo, one can identify the standard for a given use/need/outcome, but that does not mean others may not have their pros/cons and or fit a specific rec better, etc, and ignoring that reality to pray to the alter of the AR (or 1911) is short sighted and potentially limiting, at least in my view.

I don't necessarily disagree, but without identifying, defining, and testing the proposed alternate in those other roles I am leery of the generic discussion of same.

I hear this all the time from the guys that come out with their anachronistic guns. "well, this one is more better for sniping!" to which I respond "we're shooting at 25 yards and in, how's that whole 'sniping' thing working out for you?"

I dislike generalities. Yes, the Edsel *MAY* be the best car in the universe for *something*, but unless we are doing that something, and define that something, it's pointless to even mention it.

The question, relative to the original intent of the thread, is "is there another design that does what the AR does, better than the AR?" and IME the answer is "no".

Reagans Rascals

01-24-12, 10:35

there can only be 1.... in anything... there can only be 1 on top. And those not on top... will throw rocks and bad mouth the one that made it.

Its similar to political parties.... if yours isn't the one on top... you'll bad mouth the other.

The AR is the best in our circumstances, because that's what we know and have used. In old Soviet Bloc countries its the AK... because that's what they have known and used. Its all relative...

in the end, it comes down to the geographic location.

People in the UK say the SAS is the best SOF in the world, people here say its Devgru.... when there really is no way to compare them... ours fits our needs and theirs fits there needs.... you can't use a Ferrari to plow snow or haul lumber... it wasn't designed for it... but just the same... you can't use a tractor to win races...

its all relative to the task at hand.

I would guarantee that every weapon out there today excels at one very specific task over all others... The AK might be better in sand, the AR might be better at accuracy, the MP5 is better for CQB, the FAL and CETME are better because they're cheaper, the Tavor is better at obtaining AR type accuracy in a smaller package for Urban settings.

Everything has its place. well everything but the Daewoo.... ehhh god

charmcitycop

01-24-12, 10:51

......

WillBrink

01-24-12, 12:22

I don't necessarily disagree, but without identifying, defining, and testing the proposed alternate in those other roles I am leery of the generic discussion of same.

I hear this all the time from the guys that come out with their anachronistic guns. "well, this one is more better for sniping!" to which I respond "we're shooting at 25 yards and in, how's that whole 'sniping' thing working out for you?"

I dislike generalities. Yes, the Edsel *MAY* be the best car in the universe for *something*, but unless we are doing that something, and define that something, it's pointless to even mention it.

The question, relative to the original intent of the thread, is "is there another design that does what the AR does, better than the AR?" and IME the answer is "no".

Ah, that's not how I interpreted the original intent of the thread. I read it as, people he sees praying to the AR platform (usually with the opinion it can do no wrong, etc, etc) and ignore/consider sub par, all other rifles/platforms.

Q as i read it was more like "I love the AR, but is there not a good reason to own/consider other rifles which these guys ignore?"

Failure2Stop

01-24-12, 13:19

People in the UK say the SAS is the best SOF in the world, people here say its Devgru....

That is a far more accurate comparison that you probably think.
There are a whole lot of people that have opinons about which tier 1 unit the the "best", without having and real or significant experience or knowledge on which to base their beliefs.
And the exact same can be said for practical use of carbines.
Lots of words, and little else.

SteyrAUG

01-24-12, 16:47

The question, relative to the original intent of the thread, is "is there another design that does what the AR does, better than the AR?" and IME the answer is "no".

There is a corollary to that question also "Can another design do what the AR does as well as the AR?" and I think the answer is yes in a few cases, especially if they were given the same development and support as the AR has received.

Just do we are clear, I don't think slapping a AR-18 system into a fancy new plastic ergonomic shell constitutes an "uber gewehr" but at the same time I think if the military adopted the AR-18 in the mid 60s and the AR was never refined beyond the M16A1 and the AR-18 was the focus of 50 years of continuous development that rifle would be the new standard and you'd probably have a chart about which companies make a true spec AR-18 rifle and which ones do not.

Like most here I too think the AR is probably the best "all around" carbine and despite a safe full of "options" I personally find the 6520 to be my regular "go to" rifle. But if I happen to grab the SIG 551 I don't think I'm holding an anachronistic "loser gun" and thus putting my life in peril.

I think your performance with the AK demonstrates that. And so you don't think your main point was lost on me, I fully agree you could have done even better with the AR. But that is because you have much more time in with the AR than the AK and one year of intensive training was not enough to offset all of the muscle memory and development that you have with the AR. I've been trying to explain a similar parallel to you for years.

But at the end of the day you now have competence with both systems and have a wider knowledge base. This is also why you don't see guys like Vickers making fun of people who are interested in goofy "oddball" guns like the Tavor.

https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=97410

You may ask why do I care about another new bullpup - the answer is simple; it is called exercising your second amendment rights and the more proficient you become with weapons like the Tavor or the AK or the FAL or the AUG the better you are with all small arms

And that should probably be the final word on the matter.

WillBrink

01-24-12, 17:12

This is also why you don't see guys like Vickers making fun of people who are interested in goofy "oddball" guns like the Tavor.
.

Although he's discussing 7.62, LAV appears to prefer the FAL over all others:

http://vickerstactical.com/tactical-tips/battle-rifles/

From the above, it reads as if he was pushed to the "if you could only have one combat rifle" question, he'd go with an FAL.

Others here know the man personally/and or have taken his courses and may have additional useful info on that score.

armakraut

01-24-12, 17:22

SteyrAUG

01-24-12, 17:26

Although he's discussing 7.62, LAV appears to prefer the FAL over all others:

http://vickerstactical.com/tactical-tips/battle-rifles/

From the above, it reads as if he was pushed to the "if you could only have one combat rifle" question, he'd go with an FAL.

Others here know the man personally/and or have taken his courses and may have additional useful info on that score.

Well it's the internet after all so everyone gets an opinion.

Some people have been shooting a long time, some have not.

Some people have been in the military, some have not.

Some people are or were law enforcement, some are not.

Some people ARE Larry Vickers and some are not.

The good thing about this forum is you get a sense of who is who and can judge accordingly.

Again and again when reading this forum, Lee continues to come to mind. "Absorb what is useful..."

ETA: Also it doesn't look like he is advocating the FAL over everything else, just as his pick for 7.62, and as noted above by armakraut that opinion may not take the SCAR H into consideration.

Alaskapopo

01-24-12, 17:27

Ancient article. The SCAR-H has come out since then.

In fact in the ask the experts Section Vickers said he would take the SCAR heavy over other battle rifles because its the most extensively tested. It got me thinking about the SCAR myself. Downside is the cost of mags, triggers, rails and lack of support.
Pat

Alaskapopo

01-24-12, 17:31

Well it's the internet after all so everyone gets an opinion.

Some people have been shooting a long time, some have not.

Some people have been in the military, some have not.

Some people are or were law enforcement, some are not.

Some people ARE Larry Vickers and some are not.

The good thing about this forum is you get a sense of who is who and can judge accordingly.

So we have some posters who are saying the AR is the Gold Standard of everything and anyone who thinks otherwise is a dottering, old fool and then you have Vickers saying he'd actually go with the FAL.

I personally would still probably grab my 6520 because it is the "rifle I know" but I have the experience to know just because something is "best for me" that doesn't make it so for everyone else and it doesn't make Larry Vickers WRONG for choosing a FAL even if I wouldn't.

Again and again when reading this forum, Lee continues to come to mind. "Absorb what is useful..."

Not sure if that was aimed at me, I never said anyone was an old fool and Vickers updated his advice saying the SCAR would be his pick in the .308 game. There are some good threads in the expert section of this forum and most seem to recommend the AR.

SteyrAUG

01-24-12, 17:36

Not sure if that was aimed at me, I never said anyone was an old fool and Vickers updated his advice saying the SCAR would be his pick in the .308 game. There are some good threads in the expert section of this forum and most seem to recommend the AR.

It was not aimed at you. Also I had to edit my reply after reading the Vickers article because I thought he was advocating the FAL even over AR systems.

Moose-Knuckle

01-24-12, 17:43

No hate here. . .

I own multiple platforms and if I had to say I had a "favorite" it would be the Kalashnikov varients. With that said, not many nations with the capability to design and manufacture have done as much combat as the USA the last one hundred and twelve years. Stoner's rifle has seen the most action the globe over and has had the most updates and modifications. The AR is a real world example of “the mission drives the gear train”.

Combat proven, ergonomics, accuracy. . . what’s not to love about the AR?

Moose-Knuckle

01-24-12, 17:45

rob_s

01-24-12, 18:23

There is a corollary to that question also "Can another design do what the AR does as well as the AR?" and I think the answer is yes in a few cases, especially if they were given the same development and support as the AR has received.

Just do we are clear, I don't think slapping a AR-18 system into a fancy new plastic ergonomic shell constitutes an "uber gewehr" but at the same time I think if the military adopted the AR-18 in the mid 60s and the AR was never refined beyond the M16A1 and the AR-18 was the focus of 50 years of continuous development that rifle would be the new standard and you'd probably have a chart about which companies make a true spec AR-18 rifle and which ones do not.
and if a frog had wings it wouldn't bump it's ass when it hops. again, you can't just cherry pick and say "well IF it had the same development and IF I needed to shoot from 150-175 yards with certain ammo and IF it was Tuesday..."

Like most here I too think the AR is probably the best "all around" carbine and despite a safe full of "options" I personally find the 6520 to be my regular "go to" rifle. But if I happen to grab the SIG 551 I don't think I'm holding an anachronistic "loser gun" and thus putting my life in peril.
where did I say this?

I think your performance with the AK demonstrates that. And so you don't think your main point was lost on me, I fully agree you could have done even better with the AR. But that is because you have much more time in with the AR than the AK and one year of intensive training was not enough to offset all of the muscle memory and development that you have with the AR. I've been trying to explain a similar parallel to you for years.

But at the end of the day you now have competence with both systems and have a wider knowledge base.
which gains me what, exactly? I know what I got out of it, but I don't think it's the same thing you think I got out of it.

This is also why you don't see guys like Vickers making fun of people who are interested in goofy "oddball" guns like the Tavor.

https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=97410

And that should probably be the final word on the matter.

It's unfortunate that you think I'm making fun of anyone. To date we have not see ONE of the anachronism crowd come up with actual benefits, we just hear about theoreticals. I guess "making fun" is in the eye of the receiver. I'm not making fun of anyone. But if someone is so insecure in their choices to see things that way...

In fact, I'm now insulted that you think I'm so bad at making fun of people that it would be this pathetic. and I don't usually bother making fun of those I don't like, regardless of how easy they might make it, as it's a waste of time and just winds up with whining.

SteyrAUG

01-24-12, 19:47

and if a frog had wings it wouldn't bump it's ass when it hops. again, you can't just cherry pick and say "well IF it had the same development and IF I needed to shoot from 150-175 yards with certain ammo and IF it was Tuesday..."

Well I was just trying to make a point that it's not really ARs vs. Flintlocks, but by all means just ignore the point and be dismissive.

where did I say this?

I'm sorry I guess suggesting anyone who chooses anything other than an AR is only doing so to be a "special flower" was meant to be some kind of compliment.

which gains me what, exactly? I know what I got out of it, but I don't think it's the same thing you think I got out of it.

Rob, you're hilarious. Yes only you have attained true firearms enlightenment. Nobody can understand your wise and mysterious ways, we can only simply flock near you in the hopes of gaining some slight insight.

It's unfortunate that you think I'm making fun of anyone. To date we have not see ONE of the anachronism crowd come up with actual benefits, we just hear about theoreticals. I guess "making fun" is in the eye of the receiver. I'm not making fun of anyone. But if someone is so insecure in their choices to see things that way...

And here is the real problem. You talk down to people and are dismissive and then try and act innocent when called on it. It's ok if you want to act like a know it all and simply blow people off because it amuses you, it's the internet so have at it. But don't pretend you aren't doing it when you do.

In fact, I'm now insulted that you think I'm so bad at making fun of people that it would be this pathetic. and I don't usually bother making fun of those I don't like, regardless of how easy they might make it, as it's a waste of time and just winds up with whining.

It's not that you are so bad at making fun of people, it's that you are trying to be so clever that you think you can talk down to people and do it in a way that they don't even know you are doing it. Problem is you aren't that good at it.

And it sure seems that you spend a LOT of time being dismissive of a LOT of people. Even your replies here are full of comments about the "anachronism crowd", "intentional contrarians" and other people that you "don't usually bother making fun of."

And that is "regardless of how easy they might make it" because you are obviously so superior to everyone else. But it's not like you are dismissive, insulting or or talk down to other people because you already said you don't.

120mm

01-24-12, 21:31

CumbiaDude

01-24-12, 21:53

The AK has ergo and operational problems that just cannot be overcome with "practice", "mastering" or "Ford versus Chevy" arguments.At the risk of turning into another vs. thread (oh wait, that's exactly what this is :D)

What ergo and operational problems have you experienced with the AK? I'm interested to hear your opinion :)

Doc Safari

01-24-12, 22:00

Dude who spends his whole life mastering the AK would spend 15 minutes with an AR and say "What the **** was I wasting my time on the AK for?"

You may not know how right you are. This fits me to a "T". Did that exact thing. True I only have one AK right now, but my dirty little secret is that through all the years of collecting battle rifles, SKS's, AR's, and whatnot, I would occasionally buy an AK and try to get good with it. Inevitably I would eventually become disappointed with its shortcomings...again...and get rid of it. So that is soon to be the fate of my last one...and I do mean last one this time.

The AK has ergo and operational problems that just cannot be overcome with "practice", "mastering" or "Ford versus Chevy" arguments.

And here is the kicker. To make it short and sweet I think the person who said, "The AK is a machine gun that can be fired like a rifle. The M16 is a rifle that can be fired like a machine gun" hit it right on the head. The AK is a broadsword for the marauding hordes. The AR is a surgical instrument for dropping members of said marauding hordes.

The AK makes a fine battleaxe for charging at the enemy, blazing away on full auto and buttstroking enemy soldiers that get in the way. So what if it doesn't have a bolt hold open? Or the fact that the standard mag sticks out so far that you have trouble firing it from the prone? Or the fact that mag changes are fumbled easily. No problem when you have 300 guys on either side of you blazing away too. The AK was made for attacking, not defending.

In the hands of a civilian these limitations become starkly unacceptable. No bolt hold open? If you did somehow have to engage a cadre of armed rioters or something, unless you really really have trained yourself to do tactical reloads, that last pull of the trigger is going to go click on an empty chamber. You can't afford that when you're only able to fire single aimed shots.

Mag sticks out so you can't shoot prone? Bad juju for a single defender who might have to make use of low cover and return fire. Mag changes fumbled easily? Again, under stress, how many reps in training does it take before you can be confident you will never again accidentally miss hooking the mag at the front before you lock it in the back? Yes, you can fumble a mag change with an AR too, but it's a lot harder. All you have to do is make a rectangular box go into a rectangular hole. Repeat as necessary.

No, as I stated before, I have really tried to like the AK. If I could have a legal select-fire one and knew that if I faced trouble I'd have people on either side of me, great, but in a lone defense type of situation it just doesn't have the capabilities of the AR.

SteyrAUG

01-24-12, 22:25

SteyrAug, your comment about AKs is completely wrong.

Dude who spends his whole life mastering the AK would spend 15 minutes with an AR and say "What the **** was I wasting my time on the AK for?" Unless he is an internetz fanboy tool.

The AK has ergo and operational problems that just cannot be overcome with "practice", "mastering" or "Ford versus Chevy" arguments.

Same things with any bullshit, I mean bullpup designs. The series of logic errors that led to serious consideration of bullpups in military service are so long as to merit a PhD dissertation in why lemmings leap off cliffs, yet the lemmings will argue with you passionately about why they are right. And the fact is, they are right, and it's better for the world that they leap to their death, lest their stupidity be passed on to others.

Those rifles that compete with the AR are those who either almost exactly replicate AR ergos or attempt to fix AR shortcomings, such as the charging handle or lack of ambi-features. And possibly better adaptable to short barrel or suppressed operation.

I don't think I am suggesting the AK is superior to the AR. But I am suggesting there are benefits to learning the AK system. For some those benefits might simply be limited to a greater appreciation for the AR system but others might get something more than that out of it.

And while I have continuously stated that the AR is probably the best "all around" rifle and for practical reason the best choice for most, that doesn't mean any other selection is wrong.

As for bullpups, they are just another tool. They can do a few things an AR cannot do, there are several things they simply don't do as well as the AR. I don't bitch about my wrench because it makes a shitty hammer. I try and recognize each tool for what it is and isn't and pick the best one for the job.

SteyrAUG

01-24-12, 22:35

In the hands of a civilian these limitations become starkly unacceptable. No bolt hold open? If you did somehow have to engage a cadre of armed rioters or something, unless you really really have trained yourself to do tactical reloads, that last pull of the trigger is going to go click on an empty chamber. You can't afford that when you're only able to fire single aimed shots.

Not to dismiss your points because most of them are reasonable criticisms but the G3 also doesn't have a bolt hold open and takes longer to charge than the AK.

The M1 Garand DOES have a bolt hold open but with the end bloc clip design probably takes longer to reload than the AK or the G3 without the bolt hold open.

I find the scenario of a single civilian having to engage hordes of bad guys extremely unlikely. But in a LA riot scenario I think most people would be just fine with a SGL AKM, HK91 or any other rifle because rioting crowds generally are not returning aimed rifle fire. And if they are returning aimed rifle fire, a lone civilian is probably toast even if he has a true select fire M4.

If we want to talk civilian reality, we really aren't talking about carbines and rifles anyway. You will probably have your CCW with you when things go to shit because things go to shit without warning.

And if you have the warning you will be at home and will have every rifle you own lined up and reloading won't be much of an issue anyway.

alaskacop

01-24-12, 22:45

I don't think I am suggesting the AK is superior to the AR. But I am suggesting there are benefits to learning the AK system. For some those benefits might simply be limited to a greater appreciation for the AR system but others might get something more than that out of it.

And while I have continuously stated that the AR is probably the best "all around" rifle and for practical reason the best choice for most, that doesn't mean any other selection is wrong.

As for bullpups, they are just another tool. They can do a few things an AR cannot do, there are several things they simply don't do as well as the AR. I don't bitch about my wrench because it makes a shitty hammer. I try and recognize each tool for what it is and isn't and pick the best one for the job.

Agreed.

learning a new system doesnt not mean it is better or that you should change. I have a lot of rifles and handguns I don't shoot much but I still love them. I will probably never use the MP-5, one of my AK's or and HK "clone" for work or competition but I still want to be proficent in their use and manipulations.

Failure2Stop

01-24-12, 23:26

I do believe that it is a good idea to gain exposure to other platforms, even if all it does is expose the sub-optimal characteristics of those platforms.
That exposure prevents us from developing in a vaccume, which is exactly the problem with 99% of weapons manufacturers: they don't know how to shoot, let alone fight, with the weapons they design, and don't listen to those that do.
The AR market is the only one that really seems to listen to the end user (very possibly simply due to market saturation), sometimes in spite of the facts. I sincerely doubt that los over bore optimization, ambidexterous controls, improved ergonomics, alternate operating systems, 4 dozen different magazines, and rails of every flavor would have ever happened if the market didn't demand (read: want) it.

armakraut

01-24-12, 23:41

In fact in the ask the experts Section Vickers said he would take the SCAR heavy over other battle rifles because its the most extensively tested. It got me thinking about the SCAR myself. Downside is the cost of mags, triggers, rails and lack of support.
Pat

I think you'd dig the SCAR-H. I don't recommend investing in one until the mag situation gets squared away.

With regards to the OP and AK, the more familiar I got with the AK, the better I liked it. It's like an Ithaca shotgun, only runs one way, but man does it run. I've never found too many people around here that would feel under armed with an AK.

Alaskapopo

01-24-12, 23:46

I think you'd dig the SCAR-H. I don't recommend investing in one until the mag situation gets squared away.

With regards to the OP and AK, the more familiar I got with the AK, the better I liked it. It's like an Ithaca shotgun, only runs one way, but man does it run. I've never found too many people around here that would feel under armed with an AK.

I hear you. I am still on the fence and if I went with the SCAR H I would have to spend about 500 on mags for what I could get with 100 in P mags. Also I would get the Geisselle trigger thats $400. Then there is the extended rail I hate short foreends and that is another $250. So were are looking at over 1k more for the SCAR. I just am not sure its worth it.
Pat

MegademiC

01-25-12, 00:37

And here is the kicker. To make it short and sweet I think the person who said, "The AK is a machine gun that can be fired like a rifle. The M16 is a rifle that can be fired like a machine gun" hit it right on the head. The AK is a broadsword for the marauding hordes. The AR is a surgical instrument for dropping members of said marauding hordes.

The AK makes a fine battleaxe for charging at the enemy, blazing away on full auto and buttstroking enemy soldiers that get in the way. So what if it doesn't have a bolt hold open? Or the fact that the standard mag sticks out so far that you have trouble firing it from the prone? Or the fact that mag changes are fumbled easily. No problem when you have 300 guys on either side of you blazing away too. The AK was made for attacking, not defending.

I agree with some of the stuff I cut out, but calling an ar surgical and an ak a broadsward is an exaggeration. Comparing mil-style guns (m4:akm) with mil surplus ammo, they will be very similar in the accuracy department.

Now if you are taking into account match barrels and ammo, I agree, but not a GI m4.

Failure2Stop

01-25-12, 01:00

I agree with some of the stuff I cut out, but calling an ar surgical and an ak a broadsward is an exaggeration. Comparing mil-style guns (m4:akm) with mil surplus ammo, they will be very similar in the accuracy department.

Now if you are taking into account match barrels and ammo, I agree, but not a GI m4.

The base sights alone heavily favor the M4.
I have shot AKs out to 500 yards and while I can get consistent hits in decent light, I get much better performance out of the M4. Bring optics and optic mountig into the equation and the M4 doesn't just blow the AK out of the water, it blows it out of the water and then lights it on fire and roasts marshmallos over it.

While the base expectation of the M4 (as in real-deal, govvie issued) is about 3-4 MOA, I have personally seen many that will turn in 2 MOA or better with issued M855. I have never seen any AK that will do that with any ammo source.
True, the AK is more precise than most people think and the AR is more robust than most people think, but that does not mean that either fully equals the other in the areas of contention.

misanthropist

01-25-12, 02:19

As a guy who uses a non-AR as a primary, I still think the AR is a better rifle.

I use the VZ-58 a lot because x39 is half the price of 5.56 around my town, which allows me to shoot more, and because of Canadian legal restrictions on where an AR can be shot. Furthermore, I do not use it in a factory configuration...I have made it much more "AR-like" to operate, and taken advantage of lights and sights developed primarily for the AR. So I am able to overcome some of the inherent disadvantages of the platform.

So from my perspective there can be good reasons to choose something other than an AR...but those reasons may be fairly specific to a certain set of circumstances.

But I don't allow those reasons to bleed over in to any technical rationalizations about choosing a VZ-58. I'm well aware of its advantages, and its disadvantages.

armakraut

01-25-12, 02:35

I hear you. I am still on the fence and if I went with the SCAR H I would have to spend about 500 on mags for what I could get with 100 in P mags. Also I would get the Geisselle trigger thats $400. Then there is the extended rail I hate short foreends and that is another $250. So were are looking at over 1k more for the SCAR. I just am not sure its worth it.
Pat

I'd wait for the MK20 to come out of you want it set up right from the factory.

rob_s

01-25-12, 04:15

rob_s

01-25-12, 04:27

I do believe that it is a good idea to gain exposure to other platforms, even if all it does is expose the sub-optimal characteristics of those platforms.

Agree. Knowing the basic manual of arms of a good number if firearms is not a bad thing. But I think the discussion is getting dragged off-center by those looking to justify the choices they make from the heart instead of the head.

Nobody is saying, or at least I'm not, that the AR is always the answer, all the time. But what's ironic is that if you WERE going to make that argument, the AR would be the only platform you could even begin to make that argument about.

.22 for the kids to learn on
9mm for shooting indoors
5.45 for cheap(er) blasting at indoor ranges
5.56 for general use
300 BLK for... well...
6.8 for more reach in the same form factor
.308 for still more reach in a larger, but similar, form factor

and it's not just about caliber, but each of those guns can be configured as needed to best utilize the capabilities of that caliber AND with the exception of the last option could conceivably be all on one lower receiver.

I don't see any other gun in history that's even remotely capable of that, let alone takes advantage of it. So while the red herring argument that "well, the AR has been the best supported" almost seems to make sense if falls flat very quickly under even the most basic of scrutiny.

The anachronists also forget, we see you guys at the range. We see your performance with one gun suffer because you're shooting another one next week, and another one the week after that. We see you cheat at matches to make up for the shortcomings of your poor firearm choices. We listen to you USE those shortcomings as excuses for poor performance.

Alaskapopo

01-25-12, 06:15

The anachronists also forget, we see you guys at the range. We see your performance with one gun suffer because you're shooting another one next week, and another one the week after that. We see you cheat at matches to make up for the shortcomings of your poor firearm choices. We listen to you USE those shortcomings as excuses for poor performance.

Where did that come from. Now people are cheating when they chose a different firearm. I can't remember a time I saw someone at a match intentionally cheat. Not saying it does not happen but most shooters are more sportsman like than that. It sounds like you really need to calm down.
Pat

SteyrAUG

01-25-12, 11:56

Nobody is saying, or at least I'm not, that the AR is always the answer, all the time. But what's ironic is that if you WERE going to make that argument, the AR would be the only platform you could even begin to make that argument about.

And yet, ironically...according to you...you STILL beat entire classes and matches full of people with ARs using an AK.

I shot an AK for a year. While not the far reaches of "weird", it was something other than the standard. I had clear goals for myself for that year, a definitive reason for doing it, and by the end of that year I was holding my own against ARs both in classes and matches. When Pat Rogers told me I could add ten seconds to the par time (or maybe it was 5) for the Mod Navy Qual because I was shooting an AK I refused, and I still came in high or second high shooter. Against everyone else on the line that was shooting an AR. But you know what? my own performance was still better, faster, and more accurate with the AR even after essentially not touching one for a whole year.

So even though it is your assertion that the "that the AR is always the answer" which of course you specifically stated you are NOT saying but IF one were to make such an argument that IS what you are saying (nice doubletalk) the exception seems to be the AR is always the answer UNLESS it is Rob S who is shooting the anachronistic rifle and then in that instance he is still going to beat everyone anyway.

But at the same time you caution the rest of the mere mortals that even though YOU can beat everyone with an AK, you KNOW you could have done better with an AR so they shouldn't even try it because they can't even keep up with you while shooting ARs let alone AKs.

AJD

01-25-12, 19:11

SteyrAug I'm afraid you haven't taken the required 50 carbine classes and finished the 2,000 round pistol challenge at least 10 times this month to give your opinion on the AR15. IF you would please sell your house and all your possessions(including the porn) and purchase at least 100,000 rounds to run through your AR15 this weekend...then and only then can you comment on such things.

120mm

01-25-12, 21:59

Where did that come from. Now people are cheating when they chose a different firearm. I can't remember a time I saw someone at a match intentionally cheat. Not saying it does not happen but most shooters are more sportsman like than that. It sounds like you really need to calm down.
Pat

And yet, ironically...according to you...you STILL beat entire classes and matches full of people with ARs using an AK.

So even though it is your assertion that the "that the AR is always the answer" which of course you specifically stated you are NOT saying but IF one were to make such an argument that IS what you are saying (nice doubletalk) the exception seems to be the AR is always the answer UNLESS it is Rob S who is shooting the anachronistic rifle and then in that instance he is still going to beat everyone anyway.

But at the same time you caution the rest of the mere mortals that even though YOU can beat everyone with an AK, you KNOW you could have done better with an AR so they shouldn't even try it because they can't even keep up with you while shooting ARs let alone AKs.

Both of you missed what he actually SAID.

Non-AR users often try to cheat, to make up for the deficiencies in their respective system.

I don't do "gun games", but I've had AK and bull pup users try to make an "apple to oranges" comparison by "cheating" in the conditions to make up for the shortcomings in their system. I would not be surprised in the slightest if they tried to do so on the firing line.

Seems like you guys, among others are motivated out of jealousy, which is misplaced. No kidding Rob_S has a high skill level he's developed. A skill level I have no chance of attaining, but as an adult, I recognize that, listen to what he has to say and use what I can. Maybe you guys should try to do the same?

Ed L.

01-25-12, 22:18

Both of you missed what he actually SAID.

Non-AR users often try to cheat, to make up for the deficiencies in their respective system.

Try to cheat?

How exactly do they try to cheat--like try to call alibis?

And I suppose AR shooters never try to cheat or call alibis?

I mean if you are using a firearm that does not have a bolt that holds open on the last round like an AK or FS2000 or HK91/93, I don't see how you can call an alibi because of a feature or lack of feature on the gun.

SteyrAUG

01-25-12, 22:25

Both of you missed what he actually SAID.

Non-AR users often try to cheat, to make up for the deficiencies in their respective system.

I don't do "gun games", but I've had AK and bull pup users try to make an "apple to oranges" comparison by "cheating" in the conditions to make up for the shortcomings in their system. I would not be surprised in the slightest if they tried to do so on the firing line.

Seems like you guys, among others are motivated out of jealousy, which is misplaced. No kidding Rob_S has a high skill level he's developed. A skill level I have no chance of attaining, but as an adult, I recognize that, listen to what he has to say and use what I can. Maybe you guys should try to do the same?

I didn't miss what he said, I discounted it. That is unless you are saying the Rob s ALSO cheated when he used an AK to beat entire groups of AR users.

I also don't really take issue with the fact that some people probably DO try and cheat in competitions. But that issue is between Rob and whoever the hell he was talking about, it really has nothing to do with anything I said.

And as it is not my desire to be a competitive shooter and I have no illusions of being the fastest gun in the East or West, there is hardly any jealousy when it comes to guys like Rob.

If I were gonna take the time out of my life to be jealous of anyone, I would take the time to be jealous of Larry Vickers.

Ed L.

01-25-12, 22:32

And yet, ironically...according to you...you STILL beat entire classes and matches full of people with ARs using an AK.

So even though it is your assertion that the "that the AR is always the answer" which of course you specifically stated you are NOT saying but IF one were to make such an argument that IS what you are saying (nice doubletalk) the exception seems to be the AR is always the answer UNLESS it is Rob S who is shooting the anachronistic rifle and then in that instance he is still going to beat everyone anyway.

But at the same time you caution the rest of the mere mortals that even though YOU can beat everyone with an AK, you KNOW you could have done better with an AR so they shouldn't even try it because they can't even keep up with you while shooting ARs let alone AKs.

Oddly, I find myself agreeing with some of SteyrAUG's sentiments on this, even though I shot the last 5 or 6 carbine classes that I have taken since 2009 with an AR variant.

Sigfan24

01-25-12, 22:53

A true shooter will make what he is given shoot well. A mediocre shooter will make excuses for why they didn't shoot well. If you are not familiar with both the ar and the ak, based on the fact that they are the most common firearms in the US, you are not a well rounded shooter imo. Own both, familiarize yourself with both, be ready to use both. The true shooter will not feel undergunned with either weapon.

Alaskapopo

01-26-12, 02:48

Both of you missed what he actually SAID.

Non-AR users often try to cheat, to make up for the deficiencies in their respective system.

I don't do "gun games", but I've had AK and bull pup users try to make an "apple to oranges" comparison by "cheating" in the conditions to make up for the shortcomings in their system. I would not be surprised in the slightest if they tried to do so on the firing line.

Seems like you guys, among others are motivated out of jealousy, which is misplaced. No kidding Rob_S has a high skill level he's developed. A skill level I have no chance of attaining, but as an adult, I recognize that, listen to what he has to say and use what I can. Maybe you guys should try to do the same?

Honest question? How are they cheating? I am used to gun games so its obvious when rules are being broken and as an RO I have to watch for that. Most mistakes I have seen are not intentional. What specifically are you seeing? I am not slaming Rob as a person or a shooter. I just noticed he got very worked up on this topic and I don't understand why? For the record I am firmly in the AR fan camp, however I have no problem with someone wanting to use something else if it works for them.

Pat

Magic_Salad0892

01-26-12, 04:44

Name one other gun that out performs the AR constantly in more categories than not.

Weight.
Accuracy.
Modularity. (Ability to configure the gun in more than one way.)
Ease of use.
Market support.
Flexibility. (ability to use ONE configuration for multiple roles)
Suppressor capability. (lol at pistons)
Ergonomics.
NV capability. (Watch a piston gun bust NV optics, and lasers. *Cough*SCAR*Cough*)
Weapon, and accessory cost.
Maintainability. (Ease of replacing parts.)
Ease of Maintenance. (Cleaning, cleaning regiment, and ease of cleaning, also service life of parts.)
Ammunition cost.
Magazine availability/cost.
Ammunition availability.
Manoeuvrability. (CQB & Vehicle work)
Ballistics.
Overall size/profile.
Cool factor.

rob_s

01-26-12, 05:08

I just noticed he got very worked up on this topic and I don't understand why?

you have got to be kidding me. You think this is "worked up"? :rolleyes:

If I'm "worked up" about anything it's the intellectual dishonesty, not the topic.

as to the cheating comment, I have seen all kinds of tricks to circumvent the rules, from loading the first magazine with ten rounds in the MNQ so they can skip a reload (which is stupid anyway, if you were going to load one to ten it should be the second where the reload on the way to prone is harder, and harder to catch if they miss it), to intentionally refusing to manipulate the safety where required by both match rules AND stage design, starting stages with the safety disengaged or only partially engaged... and I know that these things are cheating and not just "honest mistakes" because when confronted the shooters admit to them and try to use the "well, this stage is prejudiced against my anachronism so I had to do that to make it 'fair'".

rob_s

01-26-12, 05:10

Both of you missed what he actually SAID.

This is because neither of them are able to read a post and just read the post, they are reading INTO the post because it is me that posted it.

rob_s

01-26-12, 05:18

Let's go back to the beginning.

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?

Who has the "religious zeal" now? the anachronists or the people that have the good sense to choose the best tool for the job at hand? Is an AK the best tool for some jobs? yep. Primarily when cost is a factor, although with the pure garbage that is getting sold as an AK these days and the fact that you have to pay near AR prices for one, that's kind of evaporating. Is a bullpup the best tool for some jobs? maybe (I can't think of one, and none has been proposed in the thread, but I'll concede "maybe"). Other guns like SCARs, FALs, etc. have been brought up and nobody is denying that they *may* be better for certain applications. If I had some perceived need (don't know what it would be, but let's assume there is one) for a "battle rifle" I'd be all over the FAL myself.

So far, other than misanthropist, I have not seen a single one of the anachronists put forth the reason they prefer their oddball choice other than the fact that it is an oddball choice. Stop talking in theoreticals and dancing around the topic and explain WHY you chose what you chose. Leave battle rifles out of the equation, as that's like saying "yeah, I would have bought a Corvette but I really needed to haul firewood". Non-starter, and a red herring, and a BS way of (so far successfully) distracting folks from the topic at hand.

What rifle does better than the AR what the AR does? If something is better I want to know about it, and I want one, or ten, to use myself. But remember, better is better, different isn't better.

orionz06

01-26-12, 05:49

So far, other than misanthropist, I have not seen a single one of the anachronists put forth the reason they prefer their oddball choice other than the fact that it is an oddball choice.

Some people enjoy being gun-hipsters, you just wouldn't get it. Rudy Project makes Wayfarer glasses and I bet Vertx makes "skinny" pants they can wear.

Littlelebowski

01-26-12, 06:34

Rob's veracity is one thing I never doubt on this forum. He gets out and shoots matches, tries different things, and tells the truth.

120mm

01-26-12, 09:00

Is a bullpup the best tool for some jobs? maybe (I can't think of one, and none has been proposed in the thread, but I'll concede "maybe").

The bullpup assault rifle was developed for one purpose, and one purpose only.

It was developed as the longest barrel in the shortest package without stock manipulation to allow mechanized infantry to be able to defeat other infantry in CRISAT armor at 300 meters.

If you are willing to accept the location of the action issues, the joy of changing mags from your armpit, the creepy, crappy complex triggers, the increased external paralax and the lack of stock adjustability, go for it.

And next time a bunch of CRISAT armor plates attack your house from 300 meters, you can laugh at me and say "I told you so!"

SteyrAUG

01-26-12, 12:48

This is because neither of them are able to read a post and just read the post, they are reading INTO the post because it is me that posted it.

Actually I READ the post just fine and explained why it didn't apply. That is unless he was suggesting that EVEN YOU cheated when you beat everyone with an AK.

And then you do the same thing you accuse us of doing. Rather than "read a post and just read the post" you make assumptions and ignore.

SteyrAUG

01-26-12, 13:12

So far, other than misanthropist, I have not seen a single one of the anachronists put forth the reason they prefer their oddball choice other than the fact that it is an oddball choice.

Well I will assume here for a moment that I am being included in that group (even though I generally grab an AR for most things) And I will repeat myself that I don't there is a better system. And putting aside specifically unique scenarios that might favor an unconventional design, all I ever said was that there are "other choices" that are perfectly adequate without any undue risk to the shooter.

This is evidenced by the fact that according to you, you were able to beat an entire group of AR users with a AK. Of course you seem to suggest that nobody else would be capable of such a thing so you caution against it.

So even though you have experienced that it is the shooter and not the tool, you seem to have failed to learn that it is the shooter and not the tool. Just as a AR is no guarantee of success for a novice shooter, a competent well rounded shooter will still perform even if he doesn't have his preferred platform.

You are also discounting (apparently) a competent shooter whose preferred platform is something other than the AR. I seem to recall one guy from your carbine class who used an AK and consistently scored pretty high.

Now so you don't think I have ignored the point you are raising, and if I understand it correctly that point is WHY would anyone use an AK, AUG, HK, FNC, SIG or some other "special flower" rifle?

Well I can think of a few reasons.

1. They have them and want to be proficient with them. To me this is at least better than the guys who buy expensive rifles and keep them under glass.

2. They are trying to be competent on a wide variety of small arms. This is somewhat related to the first reason of course.

I could give you a few other reasons but they would be extremely special circumstances and start to fall into the unlikely category so I won't wast time with their discussion.

And I will end with my original comment that while the AR probably IS the best "all around" I do not think a competent shooter is in any real danger if he chooses a SIG 550, FNC or other non conventional system as his primary rifle. At the end of the day all that really matters is can he perform with it to an acceptable level.

And if the guy with the SIG, AK or FNC is beating most of the guys around him who are running ARs, I'm certainly not gonna claim he is doing something wrong.

SteyrAUG

01-26-12, 13:21

Rob's veracity is one thing I never doubt on this forum. He gets out and shoots matches, tries different things, and tells the truth.

I don't think anyone is taking issue with rob because he shoots and shares his experience. I think people are taking issue with rob because despite that experience he doesn't seem to be able to comprehend that anything other than his personal discoveries might also be true.

There are plenty of people on this forum who shoot and share their experience. And they do it without acting like everyone else is an incompetent.

I think this is why Robs chart was so successful. It was a way for him to share information that wasn't saddled by subjective opinion and the chart didn't call everyone a bunch of names. I think Rob should do more charts.

Alaskapopo

01-26-12, 13:43

This is because neither of them are able to read a post and just read the post, they are reading INTO the post because it is me that posted it.

I have nothing against you. I just felt your post was just all over the place on topics and frankly did not make a lot of sense. I have not seen the same things when it comes to cheating. We must have a better group of shooters up here vs your club. Sorry to hear that.
Pat

Ed L.

01-26-12, 13:48

as to the cheating comment, I have seen all kinds of tricks to circumvent the rules, from loading the first magazine with ten rounds in the MNQ so they can skip a reload (which is stupid anyway, if you were going to load one to ten it should be the second where the reload on the way to prone is harder, and harder to catch if they miss it),

And I suppose no AR shooters ever tried to cheat like this?

to intentionally refusing to manipulate the safety where required by both match rules AND stage design, starting stages with the safety disengaged or only partially engaged... and I know that these things are cheating and not just "honest mistakes" because when confronted the shooters admit to them and try to use the "well, this stage is prejudiced against my anachronism so I had to do that to make it 'fair'".

This is a valid point for Rob. If the match requires the gun be started with the safety on (as good handling and simulating reality would suggest) it is not fair for the shooter not to do so.

If I have a chance later today or tomorrow, I will post my trail that led to the AR from other platforms & and mixing between platforms until I finally emerged with the AR as my primary.

The only platforms that I would consider close to the AR are the SCAR and the new Steyr AUG A3 -though the AUG doesn't have the mounting points of the AR it does allow the easy mounting of an optic and a flashlight. Mag changes are a bit slower than an AR, but can be fairly fast, and I have run an AUG in 3 carbine classes, including a Pat Rogers & Larry Vickers. However there are things you can **** up with an AUG if you are not careful--like putting it on the wrong gas setting after reasembling the gun after cleaning. Ask me how I know:jester:

alaskacop

01-26-12, 18:53

Well I will assume here for a moment that I am being included in that group (even though I generally grab an AR for most things) And I will repeat myself that I don't there is a better system. And putting aside specifically unique scenarios that might favor an unconventional design, all I ever said was that there are "other choices" that are perfectly adequate without any undue risk to the shooter.

This is evidenced by the fact that according to you, you were able to beat an entire group of AR users with a AK. Of course you seem to suggest that nobody else would be capable of such a thing so you caution against it.

So even though you have experienced that it is the shooter and not the tool, you seem to have failed to learn that it is the shooter and not the tool. Just as a AR is no guarantee of success for a novice shooter, a competent well rounded shooter will still perform even if he doesn't have his preferred platform.

You are also discounting (apparently) a competent shooter whose preferred platform is something other than the AR. I seem to recall one guy from your carbine class who used an AK and consistently scored pretty high.

Now so you don't think I have ignored the point you are raising, and if I understand it correctly that point is WHY would anyone use an AK, AUG, HK, FNC, SIG or some other "special flower" rifle?

Well I can think of a few reasons.

1. They have them and want to be proficient with them. To me this is at least better than the guys who buy expensive rifles and keep them under glass.

2. They are trying to be competent on a wide variety of small arms. This is somewhat related to the first reason of course.

I could give you a few other reasons but they would be extremely special circumstances and start to fall into the unlikely category so I won't wast time with their discussion.

And I will end with my original comment that while the AR probably IS the best "all around" I do not think a competent shooter is in any real danger if he chooses a SIG 550, FNC or other non conventional system as his primary rifle. At the end of the day all that really matters is can he perform with it to an acceptable level.

And if the guy with the SIG, AK or FNC is beating most of the guys around him who are running ARs, I'm certainly not gonna claim he is doing something wrong.

This.

For me, variety is the spice of life and I am fascinated with different rifle designs and how they have evolved over the years. Like Steyr said, I have purchased most of my guns to shoot and learn, not to sit in the safe (although there are a few exceptions). I understand that not everyone can afford to do this and I usually will steer someone to an AR if they really want a good all around rifle on a budget.

Again, I just fine it odd that in fellow shooters are so bias when someone chooses a non-AR system to use or learn. Personally for most of what I do (except for some competitions) the AUG platform works for me and play but I am just as comfortable with an AR, AK or HK system (I hope to learn more).

alaskacop

01-26-12, 18:58

And if the guy with the SIG, AK or FNC is beating most of the guys around him who are running ARs, I'm certainly not gonna claim he is doing something wrong.[/QUOTE]

I watched a guy at a 2009 Larue match in Texas hit plates at 500 yards with an iron sighted AK, faster than most optic AR guys. Definately wasn't cheating but shooter skill there.

Littlelebowski

01-26-12, 20:13

I don't think anyone is taking issue with rob because he shoots and shares his experience. I think people are taking issue with rob because despite that experience he doesn't seem to be able to comprehend that anything other than his personal discoveries might also be true.

There are plenty of people on this forum who shoot and share their experience. And they do it without acting like everyone else is an incompetent.

I think this is why Robs chart was so successful. It was a way for him to share information that wasn't saddled by subjective opinion and the chart didn't call everyone a bunch of names. I think Rob should do more charts.

I think people are confusing intellectual honesty and bluntness with arrogance. Off the top of my head, I cannot think of a non-trainer on here who shoots as much, trains as much, and contributes as much to this very forum than rob. Not blathering on in GD, actually talking about trying new things, and seemingly always in search of a better way. Folks need to step back and stop taking shit personally.

****, maybe his posts embody an M4C that was, not is. I've never met the guy but at least I get something out of his posts. That's more than I can say for most of the topics here in the past year or so.

Moose-Knuckle

01-26-12, 20:16

Lone voice crying in the wind. . .

"It's the Indian not the arrow". . .

Littlelebowski

01-26-12, 20:59

Lone voice crying in the wind. . .

"It's the Indian not the arrow". . .

So, we can't argue about hardware here? No one is disagreeing with you.....

Moose-Knuckle

01-26-12, 21:15

So, we can't argue about hardware here? No one is disagreeing with you.....

Argue all you like. You mention the old M4C, this would have been locked pages ago.

I have a lot of respect for the posters in this thread and the vast amount of experience they bring to the table. It's just not fitting of what M4C is to see the mud flinging.

Carry on. . .

SteyrAUG

01-26-12, 22:21

I think people are confusing intellectual honesty and bluntness with arrogance. Off the top of my head, I cannot think of a non-trainer on here who shoots as much, trains as much, and contributes as much to this very forum than rob. Not blathering on in GD, actually talking about trying new things, and seemingly always in search of a better way. Folks need to step back and stop taking shit personally.

****, maybe his posts embody an M4C that was, not is. I've never met the guy but at least I get something out of his posts. That's more than I can say for most of the topics here in the past year or so.

Again, I don't think anyone is criticizing Rob for his time spent shooting or trying new things. I just wonder why somebody so accomplished feels the need to belittle other people and why he can't seem to figure out there is more than one correct way to do many things.

trinydex

01-26-12, 22:21

Alaskapopo

01-26-12, 22:30

Argue all you like. You mention the old M4C, this would have been locked pages ago.

I have a lot of respect for the posters in this thread and the vast amount of experience they bring to the table. It's just not fitting of what M4C is to see the mud flinging.

Carry on. . .

You're right it should not get to mud slinging.

One final thought for Alaskacop AR's rule and Augs Drool!!

Pat

Alaskapopo

01-26-12, 22:34

And if the guy with the SIG, AK or FNC is beating most of the guys around him who are running ARs, I'm certainly not gonna claim he is doing something wrong.

I watched a guy at a 2009 Larue match in Texas hit plates at 500 yards with an iron sighted AK, faster than most optic AR guys. Definately wasn't cheating but shooter skill there.[/QUOTE]

Actually that guy only hit to 300 yards he missed the 385 and 420 yard target but he shot the stage so fast and clean on the first targets out to 300 so well he placed very well. But he could not connect with the two long targets. (
Pat

trinydex

01-26-12, 22:36

MegademiC

01-27-12, 00:54

Heres something to think about. Here on m4c, we are gun nuts, we aim for the best(most of us), and we are constantly being educated by the veritable plethora of SME's and Ind. Profs. We go out and shoot($ permitting for some of us). I think we all realize that the m4/ar-15 is pretty much THE shit. However, some people just want a gun for "just in case", they may take a training class or two, but are not "gun nuts" and just want to be half-decent, and have a gun to show people... something different and unique will get more attention and "awe, cool"s from their friends.

I own an ak and would not feel undergunned using it... I plan on buying a couple different guns that I think are cool. However, my ar-15 clone is the first thing I'd grab if things went bad, and I'll have a few of them once I graduate college(cant wait!)

Other guns are more than capable of being great for fighting, and anyone can, with proper training and want-to be masters of those guns. But, for the people who do this kind of thing for a living(im not one of them, fwiw), the ar is the clear choice.

As stated, a lot of guns may have a niche where they are a better choice than an ar... but for all around, 1-gun-multiple-role type situations, the ar is just hard to beat... hell, companies have been trying for 40 years(about).

Thats my take, no hate, just preference and reasoning.

The base sights alone heavily favor the M4.
I have shot AKs out to 500 yards and while I can get consistent hits in decent light, I get much better performance out of the M4. Bring optics and optic mountig into the equation and the M4 doesn't just blow the AK out of the water, it blows it out of the water and then lights it on fire and roasts marshmallos over it.

While the base expectation of the M4 (as in real-deal, govvie issued) is about 3-4 MOA, I have personally seen many that will turn in 2 MOA or better with issued M855. I have never seen any AK that will do that with any ammo source.
True, the AK is more precise than most people think and the AR is more robust than most people think, but that does not mean that either fully equals the other in the areas of contention.

I, and I'm sure most people, would agree ar sights are way better. I was talkin mechanical accuracy. I know they are NOT equals, just stating that for general purposes, they are similar(but not the same)... I just thought the analogy was a poor one and stating that. "surgical instrument" and "broadsword" are pretty much extreme oposites IMO, but maybe I'm out of my element.

FWIW I own both, shoot both, and I bet if we shot side by side, you'd say I suck with both.;)

Ed L.

01-27-12, 07:48

I think Rob's issue is the same he has with people claiming the sub-par brands are 'just as good as a Colt.'

But in that case, we are talking about ARs that might not be as reliable and durable as a Colt and would experience problems in classes and might not even make it through a class.

But in the case of many of the non-AR gun, they could make it through a class, but due to a whole host of issues, the shooter might not do as well as he would with a good brand AR.

At one time I was using a 1989 vinatage Colt AR with a 16" barrel, fixed carry handle, and 2 position collapsable stock (one position was too long for me; the other was too short). In 1999 I added an AImpoint Comp-XD on a gooseneck mount that screwed into the carry handle and put the Aimpoint over the foreend.

Here we have a picture of that AR next to my FS2000 and FN FAL:

http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m115/edagain/guns.jpg

Then one day in 2006 I was wandering around a gunshow and came across an FN FS2000. I don't think I had heard of the gun and it was one of the first in the country. But I loved its balance and weight distribution which put more of the weight closer back to my body which made it feel lighter. At the time I was having shoulder problems so this was a major plus for it. I researched it for about a week and then bought one and mounted an Aimpoint on it. I ran a Pat Rogers class with it and had a grand total of 2 malfunctions. I might not have been as fast with mag changes as someone with an AR. Since the bolt did not lock back on the last shot had to feel it go click rather than bang to realize that the magazine was empty. But I was running it in an organized class and building my skill. It didn't bother me if I didn't change mags as fast as some of the other students. I just enjoyed myself. But I do remember getting a score in the mid 80s on the MEUSOC quals that last day with the FS2000. I reran the MEUSOC Quals with the next relay using the old AR and shot within a few points of where I did with the FS2000.

I'm not going to go through my whole progression of how I went from the FS2000 to the AUG for a few classes, and then to an updated AR. But it started with me getting a Colt 6920 and realizing how much better it was than the old vintage Colt that I had been using because the 6920's stock had more positions to allow me to collapse it to better fit me, let me mount the Aimpoint fight over the receiver which gave it a better balance. Later I found that adding a railed foreend and VFG was the most comfortable way for me to run it, and gave me the best options for adding a light.

Now I've reached the point where for the last few years and past 5 or 6 classes have been with AR variants, and I imagine any classes in the forseeable future will be likewise.

I will comment about the FN FAL in that picture. The only training I have done with that FN FAL in the photo was some privates with Bill Davidson of Tacpro Shooting Center who is former Royal Marines and SBS. This was before I had done a lot of carbine classes with other people. The FN FAL is too big for me and the weight & balance is too far forward. I'm not sure that it weighs that much more than my fully set up HK416 once you add weight of the aimpoint & light to the HK416 setup. But after being accustomed to guns with collapsable stocks or bullpups with their weight further back, the FN FAL feels ungainly.

Plus there isn't a good way to mount an optic as compared to modern guns that have rails on their receivers. Also, I cannot disengage the FAL's safety from an effective ready position without having to move my hand around, unlike the AR, AUG or FS2000. Without going into all of the negatives, there is no way that I would take the FN FAL to a carbine class.

Canonshooter

01-27-12, 17:50

The collective experience/wisdom found on this site is without equal in a publicly available forum. For those far less-experienced (like me), this is a HUGE learning opportunity.

At the leading edge of the art of using a rifle, the AR is no doubt the tool of choice. This group represents the best-of-the-best when it comes to the practical use of a rifle and have honed the AR into the best it can be.

For us civilians, avoiding the gun fight is 99% of the strategy. If we do have the misfortune of having to use a firearm for self-defense, 99% of that will most likely be with something that is carried on the hip. Over the last 30 years, that has been the focus of my own education and training.

In my mind, if I'm ever in a serious situation where a rifle needs to come into play, I'm already in dire straights. If in that unlikely scenario I actually go through an entire 20 round magazine and have to reload in a hurry, I cannot envision how that scenario will end well for me, AR armed or not.

The point I'm attempting to make here is that for 99.9% of us who live 100% of our lives in a civilian world, proficiency with a Marlin 30-30 lever action would probably be sufficient. Proficiency with an AK or any military-style rifle would be more than adequate for 99.999% of the situations we are likely to face.

In regards to "cheating" in competition...

Firearm competition rules/course design is geared for the kind of firearms typically used. PPC is (or at least was) geared for 6-shot revolvers; IPSC is geared for high capicity, compensated pistols with optics; IDPA is geared for "carry" pistols - and I have to put the non-vented barrel in my G17C to compete, even though I believe the ported barrel is "practical" and offers benefits that apply to EDC. But those are the rules...

Today's practical rifle competition is geared heavily for the AR. As such, safety manipulation is a part of it because the AR has an easy-to-use safety. Not to in any way to diminish the validity of the practice, but if the apocalypse mob was trying break into our house to kill us, I sincerely doubt I would be manipualting the safety as I try to fend them off, mostly because my trigger finger is the safety (and the pistols and revolvers I use in IDPA have no manual safeties). So, I do not believe that because the AK is handicapped in a competitive arena where the rules were formed and based on the AR, that it makes it an inferior weapon for the way I might need to use it.

My goal in competitive shooting is to become smoother, faster and more accurate with the rifle I bring - all while practicing safe handling. My score or final placement is of little consequence to me - I just want to be the best I can with what I have (which will probably be far better than 99.99% of the general public).

Just my 2-cents from my narrow perspective of reality...

alaskacop

01-27-12, 19:13

My goal in competitive shooting is to become smoother, faster and more accurate with the rifle I bring - all while practicing safe handling. My score or final placement is of little consequence to me - I just want to be the best I can with what I have (which will probably be far better than 99.99% of the general public).

Just my 2-cents from my narrow perspective of reality...

Couldnt agree with you more...

Alaskapopo

01-28-12, 23:08

So, I do not believe that because the AK is handicapped in a competitive arena where the rules were formed and based on the AR, that it makes it an inferior weapon for the way I might need to use it.

...

I don't believe multigun was built around any one type of rifle, shotgun or pistol. Some designs do dominate like the AR series because they perform better with regards to accuracy, ergonomics. Its not like match designers tried to come up with ways to screw AK shooters or bull pup shooters. I have used my Ak at one match for the hell of it and it was fun. But its not nearly as competative as a good AR because its not as capable of a weapon.

As to the ported barrels on pistols. It can be argued they are a poor choice on a carry gun because of the possibility of having to shoot from a weapon retention postion. Those ports will cause you injury and possible blind you. Hence why I don't think they belong in any division but open which is all about gaming anyway.
Pat

Canonshooter

01-29-12, 10:54

I don't believe multigun was built around any one type of rifle, shotgun or pistol. Some designs do dominate like the AR series because they perform better with regards to accuracy, ergonomics. Its not like match designers tried to come up with ways to screw AK shooters or bull pup shooters. I have used my Ak at one match for the hell of it and it was fun. But its not nearly as competative as a good AR because its not as capable of a weapon.

This is a point we'll just have to respectfully disagree with each other.

I started in the competitive shooting arena 30 years ago. Mostly handgun, starting in Bullseye and then branching out to PPC (civilian league), Action Pistol, IPSC, bowling pin matches and now an occasional IDPA match. In rifle, I dabbled in High Power with a M1 Garand and a SA M1A and now dabble in IDPA carbine matches with both an AR and AK.

I think IPSC is a good example of what I'm talking about - how the rules dictate the equipment but how the equipment dictates course design and ultimately the rules. In the early days of IPSC, an Ed Brown 1911 in a Milt Sparks holster was the set up to use, and we all know from there it has now evolved into equipment that has questionable value for EDC. As you know, when some competitors had enough with the "space gun race" they branched out to form IDPA, which uses targets and courses of fire that are very similar to IPSC. However, a pistol that would do well in IDPA would not do well in IPSC, and an IPSC Space Gun wouldn't even be allowed to compete in IDPA. This is all due to the predefined rules of competition, which do not exist in self-defense or on the battlefield.

In "rifle competition" the M1A I used for high power would be "contrarian" in the typical IDPA carbine competition, and visa versa. If I was shooting silhouette competition that would be a 3rd rifle that would need to be owned. The "rules of the game" drive the equipment, and the rules evolve as the equipment evolves. This in turn drives the market for third-party accessories and devices, which in turn drives manufacturers to sponsor firearm competitions, websites like this one, etc. I’m not in any way saying this is a bad thing, but something I think needs to be taken into consideration once the conversation moves beyond what gear is best for formal competition or what the current hottest setup is for the Navy Seals.

One more point on the "cheating" RobS refers too - it could be argued that using a lower-recoil, lower energy round like the 5.56 with a compensator is "cheating." We could also change the rules (all of which are arbitrary in formal competition anyway) where .30 caliber is minimum, or set the minimum power factor where the 5.56 doesn't make it, or set the steel so that it takes a heavier 7.62 bullet to topple it, or that the starting position is with the rifle cased in a bag no longer than 26 inches. With a stroke of the pen, a 5.56 M4 is now rendered useless, waste of time, contrarian, or whatever label you'd like to apply to it.

My only point here is that how good of a score you can shoot with a particular rifle in a particular form of regulated competition is IMO not the end-all indicator of how well it will serve in a chaotic, fight-to-the-death scenario with no rules at all. In combat, I think it's safe to say that an "anachronistic" AK or M1 Garand can kill as fast as the latest rendition of a "space rifle" with lights, lasers, optics, compensators, vertical grips, rails, RDS, etc. attached to it.

I do concur that despite the arbitrary rules (most of which won't apply in a fight-for-your-life scenario), participating in formal competition is a good way to maintain one's gun handling /shooting skills. But I also try to prevent the contrived courses-of-fire from instilling any preconceived notions of how a real battle may unfold. Likewise, how the “battle” will unfold for a civilian using a rifle in a self-defense situation is likely to be quite different than that of a SWAT team doing an entry into a drug dealer’s house, as well as the impact those differences will have on equipment selection and training.

Unlike the military or LE that has a long history of what happens and what gear works the best for their applications, all we as civilians can do is read, learn, consider, experiment and then make our decisions based on our own circumstances (or at least what we speculate they may turn out to be).

As to the ported barrels on pistols. It can be argued they are a poor choice on a carry gun because of the possibility of having to shoot from a weapon retention postion. Those ports will cause you injury and possible blind you.

After spending some time seeing how "destructive" the gases actually are coming from the vents of a G17C, I have come to the conclusion it's a non-factor. Even if the BG grabbed the end of the pistol directly over the vents and I fired, I doubt the vented gases of a 9mm round alone would be enough to convince a determined attacker to let go. At the same time, the muzzle flip of the vented barrel is not much less than that of the non-vented barrel, but there is a (slight) perceivable difference.

Based on shooting the G17C for many years, I don't buy into the argument that its porting is a liability for EDC, but I know that even the slightly reduced muzzle flip could be a benefit for follow-up shots.

Hence why I don't think they belong in any division but open which is all about gaming anyway.

See my comments about formal rifle competition above. ;)

Thanks for the conversation - your insight is very much appreciated and no disrespect for your POV intended.

Ed L.

01-29-12, 16:42

My only point here is that how good of a score you can shoot with a particular rifle in a particular form of regulated competition is IMO not the end-all indicator of how well it will serve in a chaotic, fight-to-the-death scenario with no rules at all. In combat, I think it's safe to say that an "anachronistic" AK or M1 Garand can kill as fast as the latest rendition of a "space rifle" with lights, lasers, optics, compensators, vertical grips, rails, RDS, etc. attached to it.

I can't agree with you there. Below is a picture of my M1 Garand next to my modern AR (compared to the older one in the picture a few posts up which I sold to fund better firearms).

http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m115/edagain/ARM1garand.jpg

The AR's RDS allows you to engage targets faster than the M1's open sights. It is also usable in low light situations where you can make out an enemy, but can't pick up your sights. The RDS is superior for engaging moving targets, or engaging targets when you are moving over the M1's open sights. It is easier to use from awkward positions.

The AR can fire 30 rounds before needing to be reloaded, and reloading can be accomplished quicker and more ergonomically than the M1 Garand. The AR can fire more shots and more quickly because of the lesser recoil and straight back design. The AR's safety is more ergonomic and fster to disengagte than the Garands'.

The AR is shorter and lighter and more maneuverable in close confines than the M1 Garand. Imagine having to move through a house or structure and quickly bring the gun up to engage someone. The AR in the photo would win hands down.

The AR's rail enables the mounting of mission essential gear that allows you to fight more effectively, like IR illuminators & such.

The M1 does offer much better penetration of intermediate objects and cover, but so much so that it would be a threat to neighbors in a home defense situation or if used by police.

I could go on. I think this is some of what Rob is posting about.

Throwing just a plain Jane AK into the mix, the AK is shorter than the M1 and holds more ammo and is quicker to reload.

Still, If I were living in LA during the riots of the early 1990s, I certainly would not feel unarmed if I had a working M1 Garand and plenty of ammo. But I think I would rather have an AR of the time period or an AK.

The bottom line is make the best with what you have; but try to get the best that you can.

alaskacop

01-29-12, 17:47

My only point here is that how good of a score you can shoot with a particular rifle in a particular form of regulated competition is IMO not the end-all indicator of how well it will serve in a chaotic, fight-to-the-death scenario with no rules at all. In combat, I think it's safe to say that an "anachronistic" AK or M1 Garand can kill as fast as the latest rendition of a "space rifle" with lights, lasers, optics, compensators, vertical grips, rails, RDS, etc. attached to it.

I dont feel this statement is completely true. As an LEO I will admit that the stages in competitive circles are not geared towards "tactical" situations but pushing yourself for better times AND better hits will only make you a better shooter, as it has for me in my professional career. In addition, competative fields can be trial areas for equipment that may vastly improve your abilities in the real word.

I will use my Active Shooter training I attended this past fall as an example. The instructor, who is a very good shot and has a lot of years under his belt as a shooter, LEO and defensive instuctor was very "old school" for years. For years (we train annually with him) he insisted on iron sighted rifles with 20-30 round mags only. No lights, optics or other "space rifle" stuff. We still used that stuff but he would always roll his eyes and asked us if we had a coffee maker on the rifle too......

This past year he wanted to show us some new "techniques" he discovered while attending training with LAPD SWAT. I was in shock when he produced his AR with a 1-6X optic and an offset mico aimpoint and he started explaining how he was shown how the setup vastly improved his shooting abilities. I explained to him that this setup was nothing new as it has been used in competative circles for years....

Obviously not all "space rifle" equipment will be as useful in a real world but I have seen quite a lot that have been adopted but the point is to evolve and improve. Remember when the Weaver technique was considered a competative stance as well as target sights and extended beaver tails on 1911's?

Alaskapopo

01-29-12, 18:18

This is a point we'll just have to respectfully disagree with each other.

I started in the competitive shooting arena 30 years ago. Mostly handgun, starting in Bullseye and then branching out to PPC (civilian league), Action Pistol, IPSC, bowling pin matches and now an occasional IDPA match. In rifle, I dabbled in High Power with a M1 Garand and a SA M1A and now dabble in IDPA carbine matches with both an AR and AK.

I think IPSC is a good example of what I'm talking about - how the rules dictate the equipment but how the equipment dictates course design and ultimately the rules. In the early days of IPSC, an Ed Brown 1911 in a Milt Sparks holster was the set up to use, and we all know from there it has now evolved into equipment that has questionable value for EDC. As you know, when some competitors had enough with the "space gun race" they branched out to form IDPA, which uses targets and courses of fire that are very similar to IPSC. However, a pistol that would do well in IDPA would not do well in IPSC, and an IPSC Space Gun wouldn't even be allowed to compete in IDPA. This is all due to the predefined rules of competition, which do not exist in self-defense or on the battlefield.

In "rifle competition" the M1A I used for high power would be "contrarian" in the typical IDPA carbine competition, and visa versa. If I was shooting silhouette competition that would be a 3rd rifle that would need to be owned. The "rules of the game" drive the equipment, and the rules evolve as the equipment evolves. This in turn drives the market for third-party accessories and devices, which in turn drives manufacturers to sponsor firearm competitions, websites like this one, etc. I’m not in any way saying this is a bad thing, but something I think needs to be taken into consideration once the conversation moves beyond what gear is best for formal competition or what the current hottest setup is for the Navy Seals.

One more point on the "cheating" RobS refers too - it could be argued that using a lower-recoil, lower energy round like the 5.56 with a compensator is "cheating." We could also change the rules (all of which are arbitrary in formal competition anyway) where .30 caliber is minimum, or set the minimum power factor where the 5.56 doesn't make it, or set the steel so that it takes a heavier 7.62 bullet to topple it, or that the starting position is with the rifle cased in a bag no longer than 26 inches. With a stroke of the pen, a 5.56 M4 is now rendered useless, waste of time, contrarian, or whatever label you'd like to apply to it.

My only point here is that how good of a score you can shoot with a particular rifle in a particular form of regulated competition is IMO not the end-all indicator of how well it will serve in a chaotic, fight-to-the-death scenario with no rules at all. In combat, I think it's safe to say that an "anachronistic" AK or M1 Garand can kill as fast as the latest rendition of a "space rifle" with lights, lasers, optics, compensators, vertical grips, rails, RDS, etc. attached to it.

I do concur that despite the arbitrary rules (most of which won't apply in a fight-for-your-life scenario), participating in formal competition is a good way to maintain one's gun handling /shooting skills. But I also try to prevent the contrived courses-of-fire from instilling any preconceived notions of how a real battle may unfold. Likewise, how the “battle” will unfold for a civilian using a rifle in a self-defense situation is likely to be quite different than that of a SWAT team doing an entry into a drug dealer’s house, as well as the impact those differences will have on equipment selection and training.

Unlike the military or LE that has a long history of what happens and what gear works the best for their applications, all we as civilians can do is read, learn, consider, experiment and then make our decisions based on our own circumstances (or at least what we speculate they may turn out to be).

After spending some time seeing how "destructive" the gases actually are coming from the vents of a G17C, I have come to the conclusion it's a non-factor. Even if the BG grabbed the end of the pistol directly over the vents and I fired, I doubt the vented gases of a 9mm round alone would be enough to convince a determined attacker to let go. At the same time, the muzzle flip of the vented barrel is not much less than that of the non-vented barrel, but there is a (slight) perceivable difference.

Based on shooting the G17C for many years, I don't buy into the argument that its porting is a liability for EDC, but I know that even the slightly reduced muzzle flip could be a benefit for follow-up shots.

See my comments about formal rifle competition above. ;)

Thanks for the conversation - your insight is very much appreciated and no disrespect for your POV intended.

No disrespect intended but those vented gases will cause serious harm to your yes if you shoot the weapon from a retetion position if you happen to be un lucky enough to have to hold it at the wrong angle. Which can happen in a real fight. Civilians needs the same thing in a gun that a LEO and a Soldier does. They need it to be reliable and easy to shoot well. Competition is a good proving ground to see how equipment and shooters stack up against each other. If a rifle design dominates in three gun it will carry those same traits that help it win over to a gun fight as well. Nearly everything that ends up in miltiary and leo hands has at one time been tested as a design concept in competition. Take red dot sights and muzzle brakes as an example.
Pat

MistWolf

01-30-12, 00:31

What I hate is how folks keep telling me the AK with the all the comfort of two planks nailed together, is somehow the epitome of superior ergonomics, will still be shooting long after all other firearms have turned to scrap and the sun has exploded into a super-nova

...My only point here is that how good of a score you can shoot with a particular rifle in a particular form of regulated competition is IMO not the end-all indicator of how well it will serve in a chaotic, fight-to-the-death scenario with no rules at all. In combat, I think it's safe to say that an "anachronistic" AK or M1 Garand can kill as fast as the latest rendition of a "space rifle" with lights, lasers, optics, compensators, vertical grips, rails, RDS, etc. attached to it...

All rifles have their strengths and weaknesses and smart fighters will play to the strengths of their weapons and exploit the weaknesses of their enemy. They will use tactics best suited to the weapons at hand.

In the case of the Garand vs the AR, the fighter with the Garand will engage at a distance from ambush and fade away before the fighter with the AR can close the distance where it's maneuverability and volume of fire can dominate the firefight. However, a fighter with the Garand has a narrower set of tactics that give them the edge.

Since the muzzle loader, a superior weapon offers at least one of three advantages over it's predecessor: Shots on target, reliability and volume of fire. The rifled musket and Minnie Ball supplanted the smoothbore because it was more accurate. The cartridge rifle offered a greater volume of fire and reliability over the rifled musket. Smokeless powder meant reliable machine guns and longer ranges were possible. And so it goes until we come to the AR carbine. It's not that other rifles are not deadly. The AR carbine can be used successfully with a wide variety of tactics, puts out a higher volume of controllable fire and is easy to use.

Other rifles in the hands of a determined enemy will kill you dead. I love my 308 battle rifles and would not hesitate to grab one to defend my life with. Look how IPSC pistols evolved into "race-guns" as shooters looked for the slightest edge in the extremely intense competition for significant prizes and sponsorships given to the winners. Now look at the AR. The AR carbine has not only survived, but thrived as the rifle of choice in a competition where there the only one to go home is the winner

Canonshooter

01-30-12, 10:35

Alaskapopo, MistWolf and others, thanks again for your thoughts and engaging me in this conversation. I am here to learn and at the same time, test some of my thinking/reasoning with those on this board.

Obviously not all "space rifle" equipment will be as useful in a real world but I have seen quite a lot that have been adopted but the point is to evolve and improve. Remember when the Weaver technique was considered a competative stance as well as target sights and extended beaver tails on 1911's?

Yes, without a doubt competition is a test bed for new ideas and concepts – whether it’s carbine matches or auto racing. I am in no way disputing this or that in a purely combat role, that the AR is the standard by which other platforms should be judged. I believe I stated as much in my first response in this thread.

What I believe I have failed to do so far in this discussion is to make clear that I believe role is the starting point for all equipment decisions. The military and LE have the benefit of history and first-hand experience by which to make their equipment choices. While there is plenty of history (documented cases) of civilians using handguns for self-defense purposes – and plenty of training/educational resources available based on that history – there is much less history/case studies of civilian use of a rifle under the same circumstances.

Perhaps the most famous recent-history case study is of the Korean shop owners using military-style rifles to protect their property during the LA riots. While some shots were evidently fired, I do not believe that the speed of magazine changes or ergonomics played much (if any) role in their successful use of those rifles as a deterrent to having their shops looted.

On the same token, I can only speculate what my needs might be in a bad-day scenario when I need to make use of a rifle. Would the better ergonomics that are important in sustained combat be more important than mechanical simplicity, reduced maintenance needs, the ability to fold the stock for transportation/concealment purposes, or the ability to effectively hunt big game? If I had to bug out and take only one long gun with me, what would be the most important attributes to consider? My intent here is not to debate what those attributes might be, but to simply point out that there may very well be other considerations beyond how good of a score I can shoot in an organized competition.

In my case, living in semi-rural NH, having a “SHTF rifle” that is effective for combat is certainly an important consideration, but unlike purely military or LE considerations – or even a civilian in a more urban setting - it wouldn’t be my only consideration. As much as the AR reigns supreme in competition and combat, there’s much to be said for other platforms in more civilian/utilitarian roles – especially those that retain tremendous combat capability.

Thus I go back to my original assertion – what makes a rifle Choice One for competition, the military or LE may not make it the best choice for “serious use” civilian purposes. For the civilian, who will probably be on his/her own, I believe the best selection is the one that best covers an array of possible needs/uses – and I’m not in any way convinced the AR is the only choice to consider. In fact, I believe that depending on the anticipated needs (and recognizing those can vary considerably), there could be better choices. In the case where someone has decided that a non-AR is their best bet, I don’t think ridicule or condescension is appropriate – which is where I think the OP was taking this discussion.

Vented barrels, compensators, RDS, etc….

Without a doubt, the ported barrel of a G17C is not all gravy. In exchange for quicker shot-to-shot recovery comes the risk of vented gasses causing injury. BTW, this one has never been my EDC – I consider it more of a “SHTF Combat Pistol.”

In exchange for the superior sighting ability of a RDS, comes weight, bulk and the possibility the RDS will go down (or worse yet, become opaque from damage) at the worst possible moment.

In exchange for quicker shot-to-shot recovery of a rifle compensator comes greater visible flash to the shooter (that could reduce night vision) and louder percussion.

The list could go on. Every device has an upside and a downside, for which everyone should make an informed decision based on their own needs. Having the ability to discuss the advantages/disadvantages with knowledgeable people is something I truly appreciate.

My thanks again to all for sharing your insight!

Ed L.

01-30-12, 21:31

Perhaps the most famous recent-history case study is of the Korean shop owners using military-style rifles to protect their property during the LA riots. While some shots were evidently fired, I do not believe that the speed of magazine changes or ergonomics played much (if any) role in their successful use of those rifles as a deterrent to having their shops looted.

Deterrent is the key word. The Korean shoppowners were not in a major firefight nor under heavy attack. Nor were they piling up enemy bodies. They pretty much fired warning shots. Not sure if they actually shot anyone. So I would submit that the capabilities of the guns that they used were not a big issue.

Besides, can you guarantee that you will have a bunch of armed Korean shopholders backing you up if you ever have to use a firearm to defend yourself?

On the same token, I can only speculate what my needs might be in a bad-day scenario when I need to make use of a rifle. Would the better ergonomics that are important in sustained combat be more important than mechanical simplicity, reduced maintenance needs, the ability to fold the stock for transportation/concealment purposes, or the ability to effectively hunt big game?

How did we get to big game hunting? This thread has nothing to do with big game hunting. If you needed a modern mil style gun that could handle big game you would get a SCAR17 in 7.62 nato which has rails on the receiver to allow mounting a modern optic, rails on and around the forend to allow mounting of accessories if needed, a collapsable stock to better fit you in terms of length of pull, modern ergonomics, etc.

I am not even sure what guns you are talking about at this point.

If we are talking about a modern quality M4 type AR vs an M1 Garand, the M4 will give you a gun that is lighter and more maneuverable, one that can allow you to disengage the safety more ergonomically without breaking your firing grip, better balance to get you on target faster and quicker, and an RDS to enable you to get the sights on target faster and engage it faster. This is true whether you are facing one homebreaker or four, where the superior ability of an AR to more quickly engage multiple targets comes into play.

The better ergonomics and better capability of an AR with a RDS will serve you better whether you are facing one home invader or several--whether it is during a home invasion or a full fledged riot.

Without a doubt, the ported barrel of a G17C is not all gravy. In exchange for quicker shot-to-shot recovery comes the risk of vented gasses causing injury. BTW, this one has never been my EDC – I consider it more of a “SHTF Combat Pistol.”

People in competition are not going to be firing shots from a retention position so the issue of having the glock compensator blow muzzle blast up into their face does not come up. However if you are using it defensively you may need to fire the gun from a retention position to prevent the gun from being snatched away from you. One minute you seem to be arguing that competition and defensive use are not the same thing; the next you are advocating a competition feature not suitable for defensive use.

In exchange for the superior sighting ability of a RDS, comes weight, bulk and the possibility the RDS will go down (or worse yet, become opaque from damage) at the worst possible moment.

Which is why the US Army has ordered over 800k of them over the last few years and the same reason that they adopted by elite Army units long before they became general issue--because they might go down.

Canonshooter

01-31-12, 08:02

The Korean shoppowners were not in a major firefight nor under heavy attack. Nor were they piling up enemy bodies.

Exactly my point, Ed. As I have repeatedly stated, I'm NOT military, not LE, nor am I an Internet Commando who feels the need to be equipped to "pile up bodies."

As a civilian who wishes to prepare/be equipped for the most likely rifle-use scenario (I wonder how many who view/participate on this site are in the same category?), I am certain that my equipment needs are not the same as Navy Seals Team Six. But I stand corrected - the only reason to own a military-style semi-auto rifle is to be able to shoot high scores in carbine matches and be able to pile up those bodies.

My thanks to all for your time and consideration.

Littlelebowski

01-31-12, 08:42

orionz06

01-31-12, 08:45

rob_s

01-31-12, 08:53

Identify need --> choose tool best suited to fit that need

unfortunately for most in the intentionally anachronistic bunch, it goes more like
choose tool --> fabricate need/reason why it's best

Canon, while you may not like hearing it because you're too busy self-identifying as the latter group, it appears to me that you fall pretty squarely in the former group. Either that or you've just been at the fabricating longer. If things like overall compact size when stowed, ability to use a larger round, etc. means you chose an AK, then have at it.

But that now makes a whopping TWO of the anachronists, you and misanthrope, that have identified and explained actual, real world, reasons for forgoing the status quo and choosing what you did (and I would frankly argue that the point of the thread was not AR vs. AK but more like AR vs. Chauchat, but I could be wrong). Everyone else is too busy being offended, lobbing red herring grenades into the debate, and talking theory.

Ed L.

01-31-12, 09:41

Exactly my point, Ed. As I have repeatedly stated, I'm NOT military, not LE, nor am I an Internet Commando who feels the need to be equipped to "pile up bodies."

As a civilian who wishes to prepare/be equipped for the most likely rifle-use scenario (I wonder how many who view/participate on this site are in the same category?), [I]I am certain that my equipment needs are not the same as Navy Seals Team Six. But I stand corrected - the only reason to own a military-style semi-auto rifle is to be able to shoot high scores in carbine matches and be able to pile up those bodies..

It's nice that you can successfully predict that you wil never face more than a single attacker.

And amazing that you know in advance the exact threat you will face and what will happen so as to make your chosen gun perfectly fine.

You have been talking in generalities without being specific. What gun are you defending as adequate--the AK, the M1 Garand, or the levergun that you mentioned a few posts ago?

The bottom line is whether defending your home from one person or several, the modern semiauto M4 will give you a gun that is lighter and more maneuverable, one that can allow you to disengage the safety more quickly and ergonomically without breaking your firing grip, better balance to get you on target faster and quicker, and an RDS to enable you to get the sight on target faster and engage it quicker and move from target to target faster and more rounds to fire than the M1 Garand or the lever gun that you have to work after each round.

There are other possible guns that could serve a similar role--a real Steyr AUG with a RDS or SCAR are fairly ergonomic in terms of disengaging the safety as you bring the gun up and the newer AUGS allow you to mount a modern RDS that you can pick up threats quickly in a low light situation.

You could even equip an AK with a mount that will allow you to use an RDS, though the ones I've seen are either less than optimal at mounting and maintaining zero or place the weight over the forend which makes the AK front heavy which effects balance and pointability. Plus the AK's recoil slows down shot to shot times and is slower to engage multiple targets. It's more powerful round may be a positive if you plan on using it for medium game hunting or for penetrating intermediate objects, or a curse for the overpenetration it can cause in your house. It is not as ergonomic as the AR or AUG or SCAR when it comes to quickly disengaging the safety and getting your hand in a fighting grip.

Ed L.

01-31-12, 09:49

orionz06

01-31-12, 09:50

Exactly what is the last line in your post supposed to mean and who is it directed at?

Perhaps those who are offended, lobbing red herring grenades into the debate, and talking theory?

Ed L.

01-31-12, 10:18

Quite frankly, I'm not even sure what it is that Cannon advocates and considers adequate for his situation, since he posted positive things about leverguns and M1 Garands, while taking shots at modern gamechanging improvements like RDS:

The point I'm attempting to make here is that for 99.9% of us who live 100% of our lives in a civilian world, proficiency with a Marlin 30-30 lever action would probably be sufficient.

In combat, I think it's safe to say that an "anachronistic" AK or M1 Garand can kill as fast as the latest rendition of a "space rifle" with lights, lasers, optics, compensators, vertical grips, rails, RDS, etc. attached to it.

In exchange for the superior sighting ability of a RDS, comes weight, bulk and the possibility the RDS will go down (or worse yet, become opaque from damage) at the worst possible moment.

It also seems like he is aimed at ARs as most of us would set them up for defensive use and for training classes:

As a civilian who wishes to prepare/be equipped for the most likely rifle-use scenario (I wonder how many who view/participate on this site are in the same category?), I am certain that my equipment needs are not the same as Navy Seals Team Six. But I stand corrected - the only reason to own a military-style semi-auto rifle is to be able to shoot high scores in carbine matches and be able to pile up those bodies.

So it gets confusing. To me it sounds like he is eschewing modern AR set-ups with RDS like most of us have or would advocate for defensive longarms, and is in favor of anachronistic guns.

I have found his posts to be vague in many regards as to what he advocates for his own needs.

If he simply wrote something like, "I prefer an AK with a folding stock because it is compact to store, cheap to feed, and adequate for medium sized animals. I don't like an RDS because I am not happy with any of the mounting solutions for the AK, or it puts it outside of my price range, etc."

If he wrote something like that, I would have a better understanding of his position.

Canonshooter

01-31-12, 13:52

Holy mis-communication. Back to the OP;

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?

So far we've heard (1) superior ergonomics; (2) shooting better scores at the local rifle club match; (3) large selection of parts and accessories; (4) flexibility of the split receiver design. I think these are the major ones, all of which there is little to disagree about.

A point I've been attempting to communicate is that unless your black rifle is strictly for (1) target shooting or (2) sustained combat in a military or LE role, that I think there are other (perhaps even better) choices beyond the AR.

In support of that contention, I've been asking what is the historical use of rifles for civilains in self-defense? What would be the most likely use of a rifle in the hands of a civilian in a SHTF scenario? I then pointed out the Korean shop owner scenario as the only modern example I knew of.

In the absense of other historical case studies, what would I speculate the most possible SHTF scenario might be for use of a rifle as a civilian?

1. Civil disobedience, looting, etc. - I would think that unless those doing the rioting/looting are havily armed and highly trained, that my need to do lightening-fast mag changes or being able to easily flip the safety on-off-on-off may not be top requirements. The reference to Korean shop owners during the LA riots seem to indicate that.. No fantasy, no speculation - just factual history.

In this case, the "superior ergonomics" of an AR are a moot point.

2. Collapse of the food chain - again, not speculation but what seems to be entirely plausible. During an economic calamity, deliveries to the local supermarket may be interrupted. Since I (and I bet many other readers of this forum) live in an area where if push came to shove I had to harvest a deer, a 7.62X39 is a FAR better choice than 5.56. Not to mention that 7.62X39 is a proven cartridge for white-tailed deer for shots under 150 yards, and that it is a legal big game hunting round.

In that case, my AR is not the best choice.

So once again, beyond purely military/LE/sustained combat use, are there other platforms for the civilian to consider that will serve as well or better?

I would think;

1. Designs that don't have the part count/complexity of an AR could be an advantage.

2. Designs that are more robust and require less maintanence could be an advantage.

3. Rifles that use cartidges suitable for roles other than combat could be an advantage.

4. Rifles that are easily folded for concealment/transportation could be an advantage.

In my case, I have a RECCE-style AR (16" SS BCM upper with Larue rail, 1-4 SWFA optic in Larue mount with BUI, UBR stock, Atlas bipod on QD mount, Gisselle trigger) and a Krebs Saiga 7.62X39 conversion with a folding stock and an Aimpoint in a Midwest Industries side mount (co-witness).

As a SHTF rifle, I grab the Krebs because it gives me 90% + of the combat capability of the AR, plus 100% flawless function over thousands of rounds (same can't be said for AR), the ability to use the rifle for white-tailed deer hunting and adequate accuracy for hunting/defensive purposes. Yes, I would hate to leave the AR behind but if just one of them can come, I have to go with unquestionable reliablity, easier maintanence and the greater utility.

To wrap this up -

It's been my intention to support the OP in his contention that the AR is not the only platform worth considering. I am absolutely thrilled with mine, but IMO it would be a disservice to wear my AR Fan Boy badge (yes, I have one too) in this discussion and state that the AR is all things to all people for all purposes - as I have come to realize over the last 30 years of owning many rifles, that is clearly not the case.

Just my 2-cents and obviously, YMMV. Again, I appreciate the conversation and hopefully this last post clarifies what I'm saying.

orionz06

01-31-12, 13:54

Sounds like you just really like that there Krebs...

rob_s

01-31-12, 13:58

If he simply wrote something like, "I prefer an AK with a folding stock because it is compact to store, cheap to feed, and adequate for medium sized animals. I don't like an RDS because I am not happy with any of the mounting solutions for the AK, or it puts it outside of my price range, etc."

I was going to disagree with you, and say that I thought this was what he was saying, just indirectly or not as well, then I read the post below yours, and now I agree with your post completely. It would appear that we are back to ONE anachronist with the ability to clearly and concisely explain his why. The rest are either incapable of doing so, like the sound of their own typing, or are arguing just to argue.

so I would offer this:

Perhaps it would be helpful if those that do NOT choose the AR FOW for their primary rifle/carbine could explain what they choose instead, why, and what they believe it does that that AR FOW doesn't, and how this overcomes the other advantages of the AR.

Alaskapopo

01-31-12, 14:03

Holy mis-communication. Back to the OP;

A point I've been attempting to communicate is that unless your black rifle is strictly for (1) target shooting or (2) sustained combat in a military or LE role, that I think there are other (perhaps even better) choices beyond the AR.

2. Collapse of the food chain - again, not speculation but what seems to be entirely plausible. During an economic calamity, deliveries to the local supermarket may be interrupted. Since I (and I bet many other readers of this forum) live in an area where if push came to shove I had to harvest a deer, a 7.62X39 is a FAR better choice than 5.56. Not to mention that 7.62X39 is a proven cartridge for white-tailed deer for shots under 150 yards, and that it is a legal big game hunting round.

In that case, my AR is not the best choice.

So once again, beyond purely military/LE/sustained combat use, are there other platforms for the civilian to consider that will serve as well or better?

I would think;

1. Designs that don't have the part count/complexity of an AR could be an advantage.

2. Designs that are more robust and require less maintanence could be an advantage.

3. Rifles that use cartidges suitable for roles other than combat could be an advantage.

4. Rifles that are easily folded for concealment/transportation could be an advantage.

In my case, I have a RECCE-style AR (16" SS BCM upper with Larue rail, 1-4 SWFA optic in Larue mount with BUI, UBR stock, Atlas bipod on QD mount, Gisselle trigger) and a Krebs Saiga 7.62X39 conversion with a folding stock and an Aimpoint in a Midwest Industries side mount (co-witness).

As a SHTF rifle, I grab the Krebs because it gives me 90% + of the combat capability of the AR, plus 100% flawless function over thousands of rounds (same can't be said for AR), the ability to use the rifle for white-tailed deer hunting and adequate accuracy for hunting/defensive purposes. Yes, I would hate to leave the AR behind but if just one of them can come, I have to go with unquestionable reliablity, easier maintanence and the greater utility.

To wrap this up -

It's been my intention to support the OP in his contention that the AR is not the only platform worth considering. I am absolutely thrilled with mine, but IMO it would be a disservice to wear my AR Fan Boy badge (yes, I have one too) in this discussion and state that the AR is all things to all people for all purposes - as I have come to realize over the last 30 years of owning many rifles that it is clearly not.

Just my 2-cents and obviously, YMMV.

Cannon the AR unlike the Ak is a weapon system and its available in calibers from 22 long rifle up to 50 Beowolf. You can harvest all kinds of game with the AR and a lot of people do just that. Don't go down the same hole that Zumbo did when he said AR's could not be used for hunting. The simple fact is the Ar is a very versatile tool and the best out there currently when it comes to a fighting all around rifle. As for your comment on the Krebs. The AR can go thousands of rounds too and I have many that have. Pat Rogers has a rifle he put over 14000 rounds through without cleaning. So please don't try to make the point the AR is not reliable as that is a fools arguement.
pat

rob_s

01-31-12, 14:06

Canonshooter

01-31-12, 14:22

Perhaps it would be helpful if those that do NOT choose the AR FOW for their primary rifle/carbine could explain what they choose instead, why, and what they believe it does that that AR FOW doesn't, and how this overcomes the other advantages of the AR.

That is indeed a fair request;

1. I can use the Krebs for big game hunting without resorting to wildcat cartridges, different ammo requirements/inventory, etc. The 7.62X39 is a reasonable (and well proven) compromise for self defense and medium/big game hunting. A selection of JSP, FMJ and VMAX covers a lot of use and applications.

2. Yes, a top-tier AR can go thousands of rounds without failure. But it takes user knowledge (proper maintanence) and a solid build to get there. Push come to shove for my samples, my money is on the Krebs in that department.

3. Though only a 3 MOA gun, the overall build quality of the Krebs and the inherent simplicity of the AK design gives me more confidence that it will "go bang" when I need it to. Though there's more recoil, I have greater confidence in the 7.62X39 round with the selection of ammo I have on hand for it.

So, for the choice of rifles I have in my safe, that is where I stand at the moment - and I don't think my reasoning is horribly flawed that the AR is NOT the only game in town.

Reagans Rascals

01-31-12, 14:28

Cannon the AR unlike the Ak is a weapon system and its available in calibers from 22 long rifle up to 50 Beowolf. You can harvest all kinds of game with the AR and a lot of people do just that. Don't go down the same hole that Zumbo did when he said AR's could not be used for hunting. The simple fact is the Ar is a very versatile tool and the best out there currently when it comes to a fighting all around rifle. As for your comment on the Krebs. The AR can go thousands of rounds too and I have many that have. Pat Rogers has a rifle he put over 14000 rounds through without cleaning. So please don't try to make the point the AR is not reliable as that is a fools arguement.
pat

I do admit that before I began frequenting this forum I fell victim to the piston propaganda.... and the so called "unreliability" and blah blah blah...

however... after the substantial information contained within the servers of this forum.... it's honestly irritating to even hear people talk about the unreliability of the system and how the piston will change the game.... how the AR-15 is such a finicky system that requires tumultuous amounts of meticulous care and blah blah blah

If I see one more show or video boasting about how they can take the bolt out of their Adams Arms Upper after 300 rounds and hold it in their hand, I'm gonna have a god damn stroke.

Its honestly just irritating at this point.... but I guess Will from Red Jacket knows best with his DOE Wunderwaffen....

The AR is the only weapon on Earth that can be changed to any format, to complete any mission in less than 10 minutes. From CQB to Extended Range Precision, desert to jungle, .22 rim fire all the way up to .50 Beowulf, single shot to mag fed all the way to belt fed, it excels at any mission.

And now with the advent of weapon systems like the MGI Hydra, with interchangeable mag wells, the possibilities are endless. Simply swap in the 5.56 mag well and MK18 upper to clear your way in, then throw on a .50 BMG mag well and upper (if one were so inclined to make one) for extremely long range over watch, there's literally no end to the possibilities. If you have a backpack and extra uppers/mag wells, you can accomplish any mission.

That is the genius of the AR.... modularity... and even Eugene Stoner couldn't have envisioned how versatile the AR would become.... no mechanical creation in history approaches the modularity of the AR..

the first AR I ever purchased, was a Stag Arms Model 1. I sold it after about 3200 rounds, and never experienced a single malfunction that wasn't attributed to bad ammunition. And with Stag towards the middle of the road, not great but also not a DPMS, doing as well as it did for me..... I can't even fathom how someone could question the reliability of a top tier sourced weapon.

that is all

Canonshooter

01-31-12, 14:30

It would appear that we are back to ONE anachronist....

Would you label those who carry/shoot the 1911 as an "anachronist" too? That's an even older design than the AK - just wondering....

Canonshooter

01-31-12, 14:37

Its honestly just irritating at this point....

Sorry, didn't mean to irritate you. It's simply been my own experience, and I know of at least a few others who have seen the same.

The day my Krebs Saiga conversion has a malfunction of any kind, with any magazine or any ammo, will be the day my AR becomes my go-to gun. I'm not holding my breath....

That is the genius of the AR.... modularity... and even Eugene Stoner couldn't have envisioned how versatile the AR would become.... no mechanical creation in history approaches the modularity of the AR..

BTW, we're NOT arguing that the AR is not a great gun - I really like mine too. I'm just challenging those who think it can do all things better than any other rifle.

Alaskapopo

01-31-12, 14:42

That is indeed a fair request;

1. I can use the Krebs for big game hunting without resorting to wildcat cartridges, different ammo requirements/inventory, etc. The 7.62X39 is a reasonable (and well proven) compromise for self defense and medium/big game hunting. A selection of JSP, FMJ and VMAX covers a lot of use and applications.

2. Yes, a top-tier AR can go thousands of rounds without failure. But it takes user knowledge (proper maintanence) and a solid build to get there. Push come to shove for my samples, my money is on the Krebs in that department.

3. Though only a 3 MOA gun, the overall build quality of the Krebs and the inherent simplicity of the AK design gives me more confidence that it will "go bang" when I need it to. Though there's more recoil, I have greater confidence in the 7.62X39 round with the selection of ammo I have on hand for it.

So, for the choice of rifles I have in my safe, that is where I stand at the moment - and I don't think my reasoning is horribly flawed that the AR is NOT the only game in town.

1. Is the .308 winchester a wild cat or how about the 7.62x39. Both calibers are available on the AR15 weapons platform. Also the 5.56 can do the job if needed. I have put down a black bear with my patrol rifle. (Noveske with 75 grain tap) Also ammo for the 7.62x39 is extremely limited most all of it on the market is not a good choice for big game hunting. There are some american made hunting loads that are good but they cost as much as ammo for the .308 in my area.

2. If you mean proper maintance as throwing lube on the weapon every 500 to 1000 rounds or so then yes. The AR will run for thousands of rounds with nothing more than being lubed adiquately. No cleaning required.

3. A 3 moa AK wow the best I have ever had is 4 and thats with my current Arsenal AK. Still my Ar's are shooting from .65 to 1.5 moa. I like AK's too but I must prefer the AR due to the far greater accuracy, superior ergonomics, verstatility in calibers etc.
Pat

Reagans Rascals

01-31-12, 14:53

Sorry, didn't mean to irritate you. It's simply been my own experience, and I know of at least a few others who have seen the same.

The day my Krebs Saiga conversion has a malfunction of any kind, with any magazine or any ammo, will be the day my AR becomes my go-to gun. I'm not holding my breath....

not singling you out... more complaining about the generalized uneducated, inexperienced grumbling we all hear at gun stores or on TV about how the AR is this or that and how pistons are the tits and how you could bury an AK in the mud for 30 years, weld the bolt shut, plug the barrel with cement, yet pick it up and it would still out-shoot an AR... just pure b/s

It's just getting old hearing it all the time

In your experience, you have better outcomes with a different weapon, which is great, because you actually have experience... its when people spout off at the mouth, taking opinions they've heard in passing as their own, and criticize things they really have no experience with, it gets irritating.

Essentially those I'm talking about, you can easily weed out, because more times than not they show up at the range wearing all woodland camouflage, are about 310 pounds, carrying an SKS with a Walmart Red Dot and foregrip, shoot from the bench, and are all to eager to critique your setup as "ineffective and unreliable"

in the end you can't compare the AR and the AK... they are 2 completely different organisms... one is machined for tolerances and the other is stamped for economics

Alaskapopo

01-31-12, 14:57

not singling you out... more complaining about the generalized uneducated, inexperienced grumbling we all hear at gun stores or on TV about how the AR is this or that and how pistons are the tits and how you could bury an AK in the mud for 30 years, weld the bolt shut, plug the barrel with cement, yet pick it up and it would still out-shoot an AR... just pure b/s

It's just getting old hearing it all the time

In your experience, you have better outcomes with a different weapon, which is great, because you actually have experience... its when people spout off at the mouth, taking opinions they've heard in passing as their own, and criticize things they really have no experience with, it gets irritating.

Essentially those I'm talking about, you can easily weed out, because more times than not they show up at the range wearing all woodland camouflage, are about 310 pounds, carrying an SKS with a Walmart Red Dot and foregrip, shoot from the bench, and are all to eager to critique your setup as "ineffective and unreliable"

I once had an older gentleman at the range tell me how ineffective my Ar was while his SKS could shoot .5 moa groups. Not sure what he was smoking but it must have been good.

Reagans Rascals

01-31-12, 14:59

I once had an older gentleman at the range tell me how ineffective my Ar was while his SKS could shoot .5 moa groups. Not sure what he was smoking but it must have been good.

do you have his number?... I'd like to buy some of that

BTW, we're NOT arguing that the AR is not a great gun - I really like mine too. I'm just challenging those who think it can do all things better than any other rifle.

I agree that it can't outperform every weapon at every situation, but I do believe it can do as well as all in most situations.... which can't be said about any other system. Most weapons have a niche... but the AR can be adapted to fit most niches just as well. Which is unique to only the AR.

rob_s

01-31-12, 15:00

it can do all things better than any other rifle for me.
changed the quote to explain my point of view. There is no other rifle platform that comes CLOSE to doing what the AR can do for me, and no amount of perceived reliability difference, packable size, or concerns about caliber (which is easily rectified) are going to change that.

You now make #2 that have made a cogent argument for why it is NOT the best for you. If you feel your AK is somehow more reliable then that's what you go with. I think you're on crack :D, but it's your AK and your crack. :p

but I also don't think the OP meant the AK.

Reagans Rascals

01-31-12, 15:11

The AR is the F/A-18 of the small arms world.... it can be adapted to be an Air-Air fighter, Interceptor, Electronic Jammer, Tanker, Photo Recon, Ground Attack, and Close Air Support... It might not do each of those roles as well as a dedicated aircraft could... but it can do all of those roles well enough....

the AR might not be as good as a very specialized, dedicated weapon system for each situation, but it can do most situations well enough.

Canonshooter

01-31-12, 15:14

1. Is the .308 winchester a wild cat or how about the 7.62x39. Both calibers are available on the AR15 weapons platform.

If you have a safe full of uppers and the ammo to feed them, that's a valid point. BTW, doesn't the .308 require a separate lower?

I have put down a black bear with my patrol rifle.

You're LE and get away with that. For the rest of us, it's a fine and maybe jail time for doing that.

Also ammo for the 7.62x39 is extremely limited most all of it on the market is not a good choice for big game hunting.

Every Walmart has 123 grain JSPs from Federal, Remington, etc. which are ballistically equivalent to the 30-30. From what I've read, the 30-30 has taken more white-tailed deer than any other round. Do a Google search of "7.62X39 hunting" and check out Doc's assessment of the 7.62X39 VMAX in the terminal ballistics forum.

For the 100th time, I'm not disputing these things about the AR, only challenging the contention that everything else is inferior in every way and is therefore not worth bothering with.

Canonshooter

01-31-12, 15:18

and no amount of perceived reliability difference, packable size, or concerns about caliber (which is easily rectified) are going to change that.

We have reached an impasse (I think this is how they do things in Congress). ;-)

Reagans Rascals

01-31-12, 15:20

For the 100th time, I'm not disputing these things about the AR, only challenging the contention that everything else is inferior in every way and is therefore not worth bothering with.

No here is attacking you, or your views. I myself respect your opinion and thank you for sharing it.

I myself have AR's along with AK's, CETME's, Shotguns and various other types. And I like them all the same, I just like the AR a little more :p

if I had the money and ability to purchase a new MK48, M2 or GAU-134 I'm sure that would be my new favorite....

Canonshooter

01-31-12, 15:28

No here is attacking you, or your views. I myself respect your opinion and thank you for sharing it.

Thanks, much appreciated.

Alaskacop, I've done my best. I'm out of ammo, cut my finger on the safety and fumbled my last mag change. On top of it all, Mikhail is pissed I put a RDS on his rifle, so it's time for me to retreat.

Good luck.

http://www.canonshooter.com/photos2/aceconversion-11.jpg

Alaskapopo

01-31-12, 15:30

If you have a safe full of uppers and the ammo to feed them, that's a valid point. BTW, doesn't the .308 require a separate lower?

You're LE and get away with that. For the rest of us, it's a fine and maybe jail time for doing that.

Every Walmart has 123 grain JSPs from Federal, Remington, etc. which are ballistically equivalent to the 30-30. From what I've read, the 30-30 has taken more white-tailed deer than any other round. Do a Google search of "7.62X39 hunting" and check out Doc's assessment of the 7.62X39 VMAX in the terminal ballistics forum.

For the 100th time, I'm not disputing these things about the AR, only challenging the contention that everything else is inferior in every way and is therefore not worth bothering with.

1. Yes the .308 is a larger AR15 but the new Colt can take 5.56 lowers opening up a whole lot of possibilities. The point is that the AR is far far far more versatile than your AK or my AK. The AR can do it all.

2. That is a huge assumption on the bear shooting. Hunting laws vary from state to state and in Alaska you can hunt big game with any centerfire firearm you want and you can use rimfires in certain situations like on swimming mouse or caribou. Shot placement trumps power. Lots of Native Alaskans have used .222 to hunt large game for a long time.

3. The V max 7.62x39 load looks great if you could find some. I have yet to see it in my area and I have been looking. The 5.56 has a lot more good loads availbable for it out there because its a more popular round.

4. Everything else is not inferrior in everyway but no other gun design does as many things as well as the AR and none is as accurate in my experience.
http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g299/355sigfan/AK%2047/SL21AK47.jpg
http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g299/355sigfan/AR%20style%20rifles/NoveskewithTR24.jpg
http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g299/355sigfan/AR%20style%20rifles/ThreegunRogueHunter.jpg
http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g299/355sigfan/AR%20style%20rifles/LarueStealth.jpg
http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g299/355sigfan/AR%20style%20rifles/Spikes22longrifle.jpg
Pat

Canonshooter

01-31-12, 15:38

Alaskapopo, can I have your ARs?

Nice collection! I only have one and it's not as nice as any of yours.

alaskacop

01-31-12, 16:19

Alaskapopo, can I have your ARs?

Nice collection! I only have one and it's not as nice as any of yours.

Yeah, his safe is overflowing with them. Great looking AK BTW Canonshooter...that an ACE folder?

Canonshooter

01-31-12, 16:45

Great looking AK BTW Canonshooter...that an ACE folder?

Thanks!

Yes, ACE folder with Magpul CTR - I posted details on the conversion in this thread;

https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=97676

Alaskapopo

01-31-12, 19:00

Yeah, his safe is overflowing with them. Great looking AK BTW Canonshooter...that an ACE folder?

You're the one with two safes.
Cannon Shooter I do like that optics mount and plan on upgrading later as soon as they have one for the micro Aimpoints.

Pat

Ed L.

02-01-12, 00:31

At this point I am almost tempted to write this thread off, but here goes:

Canonshooter,

I think your choice is fine, given your parameters.

I wish you had been clearer in the beginning. As I've said, just because certain guns may have worked in less challenging situations does not mean that you won't face a more challenging one that requires more--especially if you look at various multifelon home invasions that occur.

In looking at your AK setup I see something that could handle multiple home invaders with its 30 round magazine; one that has a RDS to allow you to get your sights on the target quicker and work in low light situations where you might not be able to pick up iron sights; a caliber that can better penetrate intermediate cover and more effectively take medium sized game without requiring switching uppers or ammo, a collapsable stock to allow it to better fit you.

I think the clamp-on sidemount for the Aimpoint is ideal from the balance standpoint. How is it at maintaining zero if removed to allow a thorough cleaning of the gun? I ask because I don't know.

The AK safety might not be as ergonomic or quick to disengage as an AR, mag changes might be slower, shot to shot recovery time might be longer, but I think it would serve you well in almost any domestic situation you would face, much more so than the levergun or M1 Garand that you previously mentioned.

Not eveything has to be optimized for threegunning, but it does have to be able to see you through as severe a situation as possible. I should not even have to explain why a levergun or M1 Garand falls short of the AK you pictured in this area.

Somewhere when you mentioned that if it ever failed you would move to something else, as long as the gun has been overwhelmingly reliable--like no malfunctions in thousands of rounds--I would not worry about it. With enough use almost anything will have a malfunction.

Thanks, much appreciated.

Alaskacop, I've done my best. I'm out of ammo, cut my finger on the safety and fumbled my last mag change. On top of it all, Mikhail is pissed I put a RDS on his rifle, so it's time for me to retreat.

Good luck.

http://www.canonshooter.com/photos2/aceconversion-11.jpg

camoman

02-01-12, 00:33

SKS: poor ability to upgrade to detacable mags

That's about to be a problem of the past. The G7-AR magazine adapter is supposed to be ready in March. It's actually constructed using a 7.62x39 AR lower, it uses modified 7.62 AR mags... Looks very interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=7m9fP69u2CE

Alaskapopo

02-01-12, 01:06

That's about to be a problem of the past. The G7-AR magazine adapter is supposed to be ready in March. It's actually constructed using a 7.62x39 AR lower, it uses modified 7.62 AR mags... Looks very interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=7m9fP69u2CE

7.62x39 AR mags suck. That is one problem with using that caliber in AR's the lack of good mags.
Pat

Canonshooter

02-01-12, 07:27

I think the clamp-on sidemount for the Aimpoint is ideal from the balance standpoint. How is it at maintaining zero if removed to allow a thorough cleaning of the gun? I ask because I don't know.

I had the chance to hit the range yesterday to sight in the Aimpoint mount via the new MI mount. A few observations;

Being able to easily co-witness with the irons allowed me to dial-in the optic very close. At 50 yards, windage was almost perfect and it was about 3 inches low. Withnin 10 rounds I had it zeroed.

Due to how low the mount holds the optic, sighting dead-nuts center at 50 yards produced POI about 2 inches high at 100. I left it right there.

With Brown Bear FMJ ammo, my rifle typically place 4 shots in roughly a 2-inch group at 100 yards, then mysteriously sends one low a few inches away at 6 o'clock. I fired 15 shots, dismounting/remounting the optic every 5 rounds. I ended up with a cluster of 12 shots right where they should be in just under a 3 inch group and 3 more clustered at 6 o'clock about 2 inches inches away. It's no tack driver....

So, based on the accuracy potential of the rifle/ammo, I'd say the MI mount holds zero perfectly for the typical AK. All tolled, IMO the MI mount is a winner. I posted more info on it here;

https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=96115

In summary, I would not feel undergunned or ill eqiupped with only the Krebs rifle. That said, over the years I have built my AR into
a "RECCE" and as RobS states, I'd be on crack not to acknowledge how good it is. I consider the Krebs rifle as more of a short range, run-and-gun defensive rifle and the AR more as a longer range precision rifle. However, I acknowledge that the AR can run-and-gun far better than the Krebs can do precision.

My AR below; BCM 16" SS NM upper with Larue rail and AAC blackout, Atlas bipod on ARMS mount, SWFA 1-4 in Larue mount, Larue BUIS, BM lower with Geissele SSA trigger and ambi safety, Magpul MIAD and UBR. It shoots 77 grain OTM Black Hills to just under 1 MOA, and the non-NATO spec Hornady version a little better. It will even shoot XM193 under 1.5 MOA. What's not to like?

http://www.canonshooter.com/photos2/recce-1.jpg

a1fabweld

02-01-12, 08:44

I like the AR 5.56 platform as a general purpose do it all rifle. It's service history is awesome, It's able to be configured any way the owner so desires, It's accurate, & reliable. Plus it's as American as baseball & hot dogs.

In the semi auto 308 category I prefer the HK G3 design due to it's accuracy, service history, simplicity, & reliability.

I'm not impressed with the AR in 308 due to reliabilty issues (my first hand experience). I do like the M1A & FAL, but the HK design fits my needs perfectly.

I don't care much for the AK design. They're crude & inaccurate (again my first hand experience).

Lastly, I don't take offense to what strangers think about my choices on these forums. If someone disagrees with my logic, it won't break my heart.

Canonshooter

02-01-12, 08:59

In the semi auto 308 category I prefer the HK G3 design due to it's accuracy, service history, simplicity, & reliability.

Well, here's a sad-ass story....

One of those rifles I mentioned in this thread that I at one time owned was a HK91. I bought it new for $499.00 a long time ago and like an idiot, sold it not long after for some stupid reason I can't remember. Oh yeah, now I remember, to buy a SA M1A.

Today I'd give both my testicles to get that HK back....

m4brian

02-01-12, 10:39

camoman

02-01-12, 12:31

7.62x39 AR mags suck. That is one problem with using that caliber in AR's the lack of good mags.
Pat

Well, that might be. So far, with the prototype, from what I understand, every time the trigger has been pulled, the sks goes bang. The mags are heavily modified to fit&feed in the platform. Anything is better than the Tapco 20 rnd poly duck billed pieces of crap that dominate the market currently. Also, the metal mags available for the platform are all a joke. I know that there are alot of people that stand behind 1mit, every thing he releases seems to be sks gold.

Canonshooter

02-01-12, 15:02

While an AR is LIKELY better for the American shooter, if the stuff hit the fan, and I KNEW I might not see cleaning equipment at some point, and had to live afield, it would be hard to NOT choose the AK. I CAN abuse it, and neglect it, and it will work. And... as many have demonstrated, its service accuracy is acceptable.

She’s a tough old gal, born during a time when life was tough and many had suffered.

She’s not sexy and doesn’t wear makeup, but there’s something about her that is attractive. Once you see her beauty, it’s hard to look away.

She lives her life in a serious manner, and never pretends to be something she’s not. Instead, she lives for the call of duty, giving her master peace of mind when the winds of conflict blow and the wolves are on the door step.

She’s faithfully there when you need her, even after you have long neglected her. This is the world in which she was conceived and the work she lives to do – all while asking for so little in return.

Sometimes, she's all you really need.

Reagans Rascals

02-01-12, 15:08

K Town

02-01-12, 15:31

She’s not sexy and doesn’t wear makeup, but there’s something about her that is attractive. Once you see her beauty, it’s hard to look away.

She lives her life in a serious manner, and never pretends to be something she’s not. Instead, she lives for the call of duty, giving her master peace of mind when the winds of conflict blow and the wolves are on the door step.

She’s faithfully there when you need her, even after you have long neglected her. This is the world in which she was conceived and the work she lives to do – all while asking for so little in return.

Sometimes, she's all you really need.

You have put into words what I have always felt about my AK. The more and more I keep training with her the more and more I find it harder for me to give her up.

MistWolf

02-01-12, 15:49

Cannonshooter, your AK is the most interesting configuration for that type of rifle I have seen. Good, simple upgrades. Nicely done.

I remember the Korean shopkeepers on the roofs of their businesses and armed to the teeth. The L.A. Riots were some scary, very tense days. I didn't have an AR then but the two battlerifles I did own plus a few pistols were kept loaded and on hand as the riots swept past our neighborhood. My neighbors were good folk who would allow none that nonsense to happen where we lived. Our neighborhood was a small island of safety and calm and the violence and chaos flowed around us. I later found out that my neighbors put the word out they would allow no one to molest my family or me. We were the only white family in the area. I am very grateful for my friends standing up for us during very trying times.

The Korean shopkeepers survived unmolested because they showed determination. We survived unmolested in our neighborhood because we were determined. However, between me and you and these four walls, I was scared to death the badguys would make us prove how determined we were. I had the utmost confidence in the rifles and handguns to do the job if required. I had shot them enough to be comfortable with the manual of arms and had and still have the utmost confidence in their quality and reliability as anachronistic as they may have been.

What I lacked was confidence in myself because I had very little formal training and no experience using my arms in a combat environment. If I had my current carbine then, I still would have been scared to death.

In that incident, I would have used any firearm to defend myself and my family, and did not care if my battlerifle was too long or had too much recoil. The biggest worry I had (and had to shove aside) was whether or not I'd keep my head if a confrontation developed. Fortunately, none did. (I know I should take a carbine class. As I write this, I am becoming more aware just how important taking a class is.)

A show of determination to resist is very often a deterrence and nearly any weapon is enough. But man and machine must be up to the task if that determination is tested regardless if the rifle used is the epitome of the modern AR or some anachronism of a battlerifle. The nod must be given to training as well. A fighter well trained in the use of an M1 will be more effective than the neophyte who just bought a modern AR.

For my current personal defensive purposes, my AR carbine is the best choice I have. I've shot it enough to be familiar with the manual of arms and it's more compact and maneuverable than my other rifles, more powerful than my pistols and has less recoil than my shotgun. I prefer the power of a 308 when in the outdoors, but that wouldn't keep me from carrying my AR under those circumstances.

To be honest, I do not hate the AK or the SKS, I simply just do not like them. Other than they are uncomfortable, awkward to shoot and have poor sights, there is nothing tangible I can put my finger on as to why. It took me awhile to learn to like ARs. I don't like the feel of the original AR15 because for me, it's awkward. When I throw it to my shoulder, it takes me too long to find the sights. It wasn't until they came out with the A2 that I found an AR I could shoot well.

I would not feel under gunned armed with something like an M14. But I think I'd be faster and more precise with a modern AR. There's no doubt I'll be even better with both after taking classes

m4brian

02-01-12, 16:49

you couldn't find a stick and a sock or piece of a shirt? You can field expedient clean the AR just as you can the AK.... the old shoelace and motor oil will work just as well....

no to mention.... its been proven you can go upwards of 40,000 rounds without cleaning the AR.....

1. I'd have a whole lot more confidence in the AK working with improvised cleaning methods - actually with none.

2. That 40,000 on Dirty 14 I respect. But, it did get cleaned. Now, do the same, and lay it in a mud hole and DO get some serious dirt into the device. Even Larry Vickers tapes the muzzle, closes the dust cover, etc.

It just AIN'T as good in the reliability department. It is much better than the avg joe thinks, but again, if I had to pick one, and the conditions were bad...

Littlelebowski

02-01-12, 17:35

She’s a tough old gal, born during a time when life was tough and many had suffered.

She’s not sexy and doesn’t wear makeup, but there’s something about her that is attractive. Once you see her beauty, it’s hard to look away.

She lives her life in a serious manner, and never pretends to be something she’s not. Instead, she lives for the call of duty, giving her master peace of mind when the winds of conflict blow and the wolves are on the door step.

She’s faithfully there when you need her, even after you have long neglected her. This is the world in which she was conceived and the work she lives to do – all while asking for so little in return.

Sometimes, she's all you really need.

I could say the same about my ARs or my AK. These are tools, inanimate objects. Talk about romanticizing..... You typed that like you were typing through the tears of love.

Littlelebowski

02-01-12, 17:37

1. I'd have a whole lot more confidence in the AK working with improvised cleaning methods - actually with none.

2. That 40,000 on Dirty 14 I respect. But, it did get cleaned. Now, do the same, and lay it in a mud hole and DO get some serious dirt into the device. Even Larry Vickers tapes the muzzle, closes the dust cover, etc.

It just AIN'T as good in the reliability department. It is much better than the avg joe thinks, but again, if I had to pick one, and the conditions were bad...

Yeah because Larry Vickers wouldn't tape the muzzle on an AK because of its mystical powers given to it by the Lady of the Lake to shoot through bore obstructions......

a1fabweld

02-01-12, 17:45

She’s a tough old gal, born during a time when life was tough and many had suffered.

She’s not sexy and doesn’t wear makeup, but there’s something about her that is attractive. Once you see her beauty, it’s hard to look away.

She lives her life in a serious manner, and never pretends to be something she’s not. Instead, she lives for the call of duty, giving her master peace of mind when the winds of conflict blow and the wolves are on the door step.

She’s faithfully there when you need her, even after you have long neglected her. This is the world in which she was conceived and the work she lives to do – all while asking for so little in return.

Sometimes, she's all you really need.

Damn brother, you just described the local corner hooker! I treat her like a crap, have my way with her, wipe my stick off in her hair after I'm done, then kick her to the curb.

The next time I need her, shes there like a good loyal dog ready for more punishment!

Heavy Metal

02-01-12, 18:01

I guarentee you Larry would have taped the muzzle of any rifle he did that to, not just an AR.

CumbiaDude

02-01-12, 18:10

The AK safety might not be as ergonomic or quick to disengage as an AR.Just to take this one minor comment, AK safety isn't all that bad:

Travis Haley Pro-Tip: Kalash Safety (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfGnz38K9ik)

Canonshooter

02-01-12, 18:13

You typed that like you were typing through the tears of love.

Littlelebowski, you need to get in better touch with your sensitive side! :cray:

Alaskapopo

02-01-12, 18:14

Just to take this one minor comment, AK safety isn't all that bad:

Travis Haley Pro-Tip: Kalash Safety (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfGnz38K9ik)

Its slow as hell unless you get an extended one like the one I have on my from Krebs. The stock one sucks ass because you have to break your firing grip to make it work which is a lot slower.
http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g299/355sigfan/AK%2047/safety.jpg

Canonshooter

02-01-12, 18:19

Its slow as hell unless you get an extended one like the one I have on my from Krebs.

I've been eyeballing one of those and need to get one....then get my ass out to the range and practice!

sinlessorrow

02-01-12, 19:07

1. I'd have a whole lot more confidence in the AK working with improvised cleaning methods - actually with none.

2. That 40,000 on Dirty 14 I respect. But, it did get cleaned. Now, do the same, and lay it in a mud hole and DO get some serious dirt into the device. Even Larry Vickers tapes the muzzle, closes the dust cover, etc.

It just AIN'T as good in the reliability department. It is much better than the avg joe thinks, but again, if I had to pick one, and the conditions were bad...

Thats funny ive covered my ar in sand dust cover open. Covered it in mud dust cover open. Dunked it in water and its always fired. Then again i use a 50/50 mix of motor oil and Transmission fluid and it sems to stay loger

Its just funny when people say the AR jams when sand and mud gets in it
Next time i can ill video tape myself

Canonshooter

02-01-12, 19:59

I remember the Korean shopkeepers on the roofs of their businesses and armed to the teeth. The L.A. Riots were some scary, very tense days. I didn't have an AR then but the two battlerifles I did own plus a few pistols were kept loaded and on hand as the riots swept past our neighborhood. My neighbors were good folk who would allow none that nonsense to happen where we lived. Our neighborhood was a small island of safety and calm and the violence and chaos flowed around us. I later found out that my neighbors put the word out they would allow no one to molest my family or me. We were the only white family in the area. I am very grateful for my friends standing up for us during very trying times.

That's some scary stuff MistWolf - I'm glad you and your family made it through OK. When the SHTF, people need to band together - which your experience is proof of.

CumbiaDude

02-01-12, 22:52

Its slow as hell unless you get an extended one like the one I have on my from Krebs.So, did you watch the video I linked to and then decide to say that, or did you just skip it and decide to post?

If you did watch the video, you'll have to explain how "no slower than leaving the safety completely off" is "slow as hell"....

:rolleyes:

Alaskapopo

02-01-12, 23:03

So, did you watch the video I linked to and then decide to say that, or did you just skip it and decide to post?

If you did watch the video, you'll have to explain how "no slower than leaving the safety completely off" is "slow as hell"....

:rolleyes:

The video did not list any times. Its a good technique if your forced to use the standard safety, but it still requires you to have your firing hand off the gun. This is not so much of a problem when your ready and in a good firing stance. Its not so good when your scanning as you walk and have to make a snap shot. It also makes it easier for someone to take the gun from you in a weapon retention situation. By the way guilty as charged I did not notice the video when you first posted and had to go back and review it. Again however I much prefer having a extended safety that I can use my trigger finger on vs. having to keep my firing hand off the pistol grip loosly on the reciever.
Pat

CumbiaDude

02-01-12, 23:12

blasternank

02-01-12, 23:22

I love the AR 15 but like you said there are a lot of other fun rifles out there. I like AK's, sks's, etc. I enjoy shooting guns period. I like the versatility of the AR platform where I can switch uppers/calibers and I have a new rifle. That being said I still enjoy the other rifles.

Alaskapopo

02-01-12, 23:28

So just to check, you're saying "slow as hell" is a difference so small you need a shot timer to verify if it even exists? And I take it you haven't actually done that, you just assume there is a difference?

Like I said, just checking....

edit: I see you edited your post so I'll edit my response. If you prefer the modification, that's fine (obviously :)) but to say the safety is "slow as hell" just isn't true.

I have not used his technique. I have used a standard safety and the Krebs safety on my AK's on the timer. And in my experience it is signifcantly slower to use the standard safety.
Pat

CumbiaDude

02-01-12, 23:36

(...) in my experience it is signifcantly slower to use the standard safety.I was just playing with my two rifles between posts (both standard safety). From a low ready I can have my hand firmly on the pistol grip, slap the safety off, and have my hand back on the grip - before I even get the sight on target.

I think it's just a matter of practice and body shape. I have small hands, but maybe my fingers are a tad longer than yours? *shrug* :confused:

MegademiC

02-02-12, 11:56

talking safeties, the ak safety can be turned of and a shot fired in just about the same time as with it off the whole time, as demonstrated by Travis Haley in the make ready video... However, the question is can you do it everytime, under stress? How much practice would it take to get proficient and would that time be better spend shooting a different rifle with a better safety? Rhetorical questions that I would be asking myself if choosing between the two. Just thought Id throw that out there.

Jippo

02-02-12, 12:13

I had to drop my first post here. :) Discussion has been very interesting so far, so I thought I might as well give my 2 cents to it.

A little bit of background: I have been training with an AK variant from the middle of the 90's. First contact with the weapon type was as a conscript a in the Finnish defence forces, a Valmet RK62. In and out of the service I have since shot AK's from varying countries and variations and have been shooting competitevely with an Sako M92s (which is a "civilized" RK95 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rk_95_Tp)). I also have quite a bit of experience with the AR system, as it is the most popular competition platform in these parts. I also recently bought the first AR of my own (which lead me to this forum in search of information).

Now to the no love for other assault rifles bit. I can very well understand the affection to the AR. And I do agree on most points brough up in this very thread about it's positive aspects. But I do not think it is the best design as it has some negative features as well like all possible designs have. The key is to find the balance between the pro's and con's for the use and the environment in question.

From my perspective there are few things that I want from a fighting carbine. It needs to be reliable in all conditions, easy to keep going, sturdy and accurate. For me I feel the closest thing to ideal fighting rifle is my M92. Your mileage my vary according to your environment and personal preference, my "mileage" is listed below:

As I am writing this we have -25C temps outside and it is probably going to drop to -30C overnight. So in my area of ops the winter weather is a huge issue already. This basically means that a rifle has to be ran rather dry (many use kerosene or diesel to flush out oil as it leaves a thin film of oil behind) as oil will eventually start gathering water as it gets dirty. This means that DI AR construction will be in problems as it runs best when wet, but also because it injects carbon in to the action. Also the ergonomical parts of the AR may cause problems due to their design: any water in the firing mechanism or the magwell area is likely to cause problems when it freezes. And when you use a weapon in snow it will get water in it. Snow melts on hot guns.
My weapon of choice also shats itself with carbon, but it is very overgassed (blowback brakes any ice). Another design aspect that helps is the way the bolt carrier moves: the rails on the carrier are significantly larger than the rails on the receiver allowing even sand sized particles between them so it is not even likely to freeze. Safety and magazine release can be operated with even mittens on. (and yes, I operate them with firing hand like seen on the video, mag catch can be released with middle finger, safety as in Travis' vid). Magazine can be inserted even with snow inside the magazine well as one can use big muscles in the arms and use leverage of the magazine to force it in. Gun will not malfunction if there is snow in the magazine well when inserting the magazine.
One nice feature with the Sako is it's insensibility to ammunition. I can shoot what ever in it from subsonics to Russian surplus with and without a supressor and it cycles. But it is the winter weather that decides. In the summertime AR will do pretty nicely, but I just feel it isn't a winter rifle. Again YMMV.

About keeping the rifle going. DI AR and AK designs are IMO pain to clean compared to short stroke piston designs which hardly get dirty to begin with. So no prize there really, but the Sako/AK will get a consolation prize for keeping on ticking regardless thanks to the generous dimensioning of the BCG and overgassing. I've been in too many drills where getting a few hours of down time was a luxury well spent on sleeping, compared to weappon maintenance. Clean weapon will do little good if the user is too tired to see.

Sako is heavy as it has milled steel receiver. On the other hand it is also extremely sturdy. I can beat someone into pulp with it should the need arise. If that is too much bs, let's just say that I can slip and land my fat arse on it and it'll work. What I like as well is the fact that all the parts needed to operate the gun are located in the sturdy receiver (vs. a seperate buffer tube) and protected from blows of all sorts. If the gun jams I can smash the cocking lever against something solid an the rifle will open up. Friend of mine tried that on an AR15 when it jammed in a middle of stage and bent the upper receiver so that the rifle became inoperable.

For the accuracy I do not demand too much. We are like Canada: lot of forests where visibility is often no more than few tens of meters. with 150m zero 7.62x39 gives me point blank range of 200m which will be enough in normal combat conditions. My rifle is pretty worn but last time shot groups it gave me about 1.5 MOA groups with military grade ammunition (made by Lapua in here). It will be slightly over 2 MOA with cheapest Russian stuff.

These are my excuses to choose my rifle over an AR. But the real reason is that I have used thse guns for so long and put so many rounds through them that adjusting to something else is going to be very difficult. I've really grown as a tactical shooter with the AK and I know very well about it's advantages and disadvantages in those conditions. I can use my experience to take advantage of the good and minimise the effect of the bad.

I think I will be using AR's in competition in future if I can just teach myself to master two totally different weaponsystems. Why? Because AR is a better competition rifle, that is true.

Thank you for the interesting discussion so far. :)

Jippo

02-02-12, 12:18

However, the question is can you do it everytime, under stress? How much practice would it take to get proficient and would that time be better spend shooting a different rifle with a better safety?

I find it easier to manipulate than AR safety and I am also faster with it than I am with an AR. Movement of the fingers is very natural when you get the hang of it. When on safe my hand protects the trigger from any branches etc. that might get into the trigger guard whilst my thumb remains behind the pistol grip.

When engaging I just lift the rifle and the firing hand and the safety remain in place thus bringing the selector down to single shots.

Alaskapopo

02-02-12, 12:48

Ar's can run fine in temperatures as low as -50 just use 0 weight motor oil or ATF. It gets cold up here in Alaska as well.
Pat

Jippo

02-02-12, 13:05

Doc Safari

02-02-12, 13:09

I was just playing with my two rifles between posts (both standard safety). From a low ready I can have my hand firmly on the pistol grip, slap the safety off, and have my hand back on the grip - before I even get the sight on target.

I think it's just a matter of practice and body shape. I have small hands, but maybe my fingers are a tad longer than yours? *shrug* :confused:

If you learn to swipe off the AK safety with the middle finger of your firing hand you do not need to take your hand off the pistol grip.

Alaskapopo

02-02-12, 13:10

It's a matter of preference as I said. To me there isn't a thing that is reliable enough: I want to get all I can in that department, even when it means making compromises elsewhere.

Here is an old but valid piece of winter testing:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v355/Jippo01/Guns/Torture_Test_Page1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v355/Jippo01/Guns/Torture_Test_Page2.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v355/Jippo01/Guns/Torture_Test_Page3.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v355/Jippo01/Guns/Torture_Test_Page4.jpg

(Scans courtesy of valmet.org)

I know the author of that article a very good man. He is friends with our chief and puts on an active shooter training for us every other year. Back when that article was written they did not know how what we know today about using the right lubes when the temperature falls. He (Jeff Hall) is also a huge fan of the AR.
Pat

Jippo

02-02-12, 13:29

Alaskapopo

02-02-12, 13:38

And what if you are defending your nation in a total war in middle of wilderness (like many of us would be) and the struggling supply has not been able to bring enough ammunition or warm food? Never mind the right oil, or oil at all?

Jippo the right oil is what you should also be running in your vehicles at that weather. ATF (automatic transmisison fluid) or 0 weight motor oil in areas where those types of temperatures occur are very common. Also if need be an AR will run dry in the cold well enough to finish the fight. In my testing you can usually get at least 100 rounds downrange in those temperatures without any lube before the weapon starts to have issues. Also your day dreaming if you think we will be in total war defending the nation. The only war to come would be nuclear. The only situation in which you would need your weapons would be a natural disaster or similar breakdown in social control.
Pat

Jippo

02-02-12, 13:53

In my testing you can usually get at least 100 rounds downrange in those temperatures without any lube before the weapon starts to have issues.

This is the key issue here, I have not seen the issues yet with AK system that has been running dry. And I have seen AK's with few thousand shots since the last maintenance run dry in the winter. AK will run longer than AR in all conditions I am aware of. Lube or no lube, winter or summer. I have had maybe dozen malfunctions on my personal weapon within few tens of thousand shots. 90% of them have been due to faulty ammunition not igniting(I shoot the cheapest stuff usually). Also, I'm happy that you have such an reliable gun too, but it is still not for me...

Also your day dreaming if you think we will be in total war defending the nation. The only war to come would be nuclear. The only situation in which you would need your weapons would be a natural disaster or similar breakdown in social control.
Pat

Maybe I should have been more clear, I'm not located in the US. I am few hundred km's from St. Petersburg, Russia and we don't have any nukes here. :)

It is always better to be preperad to the worst scenario possible and find out the reality is easier.

BTW: This isn't an argument as there is nothing to argue about. I just posted my specs because I found other peoples opinions interesting. I'm not here to convert anybody, and I do not think any single conversation can convert me from my opinion based on my personal experiences.

Alaskapopo

02-02-12, 13:58

This is the key issue here, I have not seen the issues yet with AK system that has been running dry. And I have seen AK's with few thousand shots since the last maintenance run dry in the winter. AK will run longer than AR in all conditions I am aware of. Lube or no lube, winter or summer. I have had maybe dozen malfunctions on my personal weapon within few tens of thousand shots. 90% of them have been due to faulty ammunition not igniting(I shoot the cheapest stuff usually). Also, I'm happy that you have such an reliable gun too, but it is still not for me...

Maybe I should have been more clear, I'm not located in the US. I am few hundred km's from St. Petersburg, Russia and we don't have any nukes here. :)

It is always better to be preperad to the worst scenario possible and find out the reality is easier.

BTW: This isn't an argument as there is nothing to argue about. I just posted my specs because I found other peoples opinions interesting. I'm not here to convert anybody, and I do not think any single conversation can convert me from my opinion based on my personal experiences.

In this day and age a full on invasion from another country at least to those living in the US is not a possibility. The Ak does have some advantages when you have no way at all to maintain it. It however has weakness such as not having near the accuracy. If your 300 yards or more away I can easily hit you with an AR with an AK you would need a lot of luck on your side to hit me.

Jippo

02-02-12, 14:02

Canonshooter

02-02-12, 14:10

Jippo, great post - thanks for your contribution to this thread!

The results of the test you posted above do not surprise me. I've been a "mechanical guy" all my life. I've worked in the hot water heating trades, auto mechanics and as a hobby gunsmith (my own guns). I love taking things apart to see how they work and to analyze the design.

In my last job as a product manager for a large manufacturer of hot water heating products, I was in charge of the development of new products. One of my top priorities - based on my experience of installing and servicing such products - was to make sure the design was simple, easy to service and yet effective for its intended purpose.

When I look at the AR design, I see many tiny springs, detent plungers, gas rings, the action spring contained and protected by a long (and not terribly robust) receiver extension tube, small parts, etc. The first time I ever took an AR fully apart, the spring/plunger that retains the buffer spring went flying off into space when I removed the buffer tube. I learned the hard way that when you disassemble an AR beyond a field strip, you better know what you're doing (and where all of those tiny springs are and what is holding them in place).

The AK on the other hand srikes me as crude, yet the simplicity of design with fewer (and more robust) parts is usually preferable in any mechanical design, especially one that can be subjected to extreme environmental conditions. While its design may be crude in comparison, not as accurate and perhaps less ergonomic, there isn't a whole lot to go wrong with an AK (or to screw up when taking one apart). In the worst of conditions, with no bases to retreat to, no armorer to take it to or parts bin to reach into, there's much to be said for that.

I own both and very much like both, but for different and (IMO) equally valid reasons. Thanks again for sharing your experience with us!

Alaskapopo

02-02-12, 14:13

Sako's are more accurate with standard military ball than M4 is. Granted on M4's behalf that it is not the fault of the rifle as much as the ammunition, but Sako rifles are still sub 2-MOA guns, easily.

You can also get 2 moa or less out of an M4 with ball assuming its not shot out. With MK262 ammo you can get down to 1moa.
Pat

Jippo

02-02-12, 14:19

Alaskapopo, to be honest that is why I bought the AR. I am preparing a review of a newly acquired H&K MR308 to be posted on the "beyond 5.56" section.

In competitions we do occasionally have stages that require longer reach and better accuracy than I can achieve from the M92s. I've been able to hit steel up to 500m with it, but if there is wind it just becomes too difficult to my liking. Possible, yes, but there are better ways to do it.

96 SS

02-02-12, 14:24

I have not seen the issues yet with AK system that has been running dry.

I have - in my own hands!

But I still love my AK. That article also reaffirmed my desire to at some point pick up an FNC.

alaskacop

02-02-12, 15:11

lol
wow, Jeff sure looks young in that article. I'm going to have to show this to him the next time he comes up....did not think he liked anything ever BUT an AR....

Jippo

02-02-12, 15:47

Make the most of it! :p

SteyrAUG

02-02-12, 15:50

If you learn to swipe off the AK safety with the middle finger of your firing hand you do not need to take your hand off the pistol grip.

It's kinda ugly but if you wrap a few strands of fishing line around the selector at the thin point it "floats" and you can easily move it with one finger.

Jippo

02-02-12, 15:59

It's kinda ugly but if you wrap a few strands of fishing line around the selector at the thin point it "floats" and you can easily move it with one finger.

Lift it over the stop in the bottom of the receiver and then just bend it outwards. Lift it back over the stop and test the movement, repeat process if required. It is better to go a bit slow, but should you loosen it up too much you can still also bend it back to tighten it up again.

So no need for the fishing lines.

Moltke

02-02-12, 16:17

Well, here's a sad-ass story....

One of those rifles I mentioned in this thread that I at one time owned was a HK91. I bought it new for $499.00 a long time ago and like an idiot, sold it not long after for some stupid reason I can't remember. Oh yeah, now I remember, to buy a SA M1A.

Today I'd give both my testicles to get that HK back....

Shit dude! Both your testicles?

Canonshooter

02-02-12, 16:21

Shit dude! Both your testicles?

At this point in my life, the rifle would be more useful!

Reagans Rascals

02-02-12, 16:25

I remember in Magpul's Dynamic Handgun, Mr. Haley conveying a personal experience from his time overseas, during which a gentleman presented an AK into Mr. Haley's face. At that point he noticed the safety was engaged and knew the individual had to remove his hand from the fire control to disengage it, and thus Mr. Haley knew he was capable of engaging the individual before the weapon was made hot, and in the end shot said individual twice in the head, before the individual even realized his own mistake.

Mr. Haley would not have had the same out, if the individual presented an AR... or any other weapon equipped with a thumb selector.

Doc Safari

02-02-12, 16:29

Lift it over the stop in the bottom of the receiver and then just bend it outwards. Lift it back over the stop and test the movement, repeat process if required. It is better to go a bit slow, but should you loosen it up too much you can still also bend it back to tighten it up again.

So no need for the fishing lines.

And these "techniques" just illustrate another reason why I have trouble really liking the AK. You don't have to "tweak" the safety on an AR.

I allow for the fact there is one instance that I might prefer the AK: when an AR has a double feed with the BCG hung up where the charging handle can't grab it. It is indeed a pain in the ass to get that BCG back, rip the mag out, and allow the double fed rounds to fall free.

But honestly, all this talk about being caught in a societal breakdown without lube and whatnot: you'll probably be without food, water, and shelter as well. If you've been able to plan ahead for that stuff, then lube is just one more item to carry.

It bothers me that the only thing separating your face from the action of the AK is a thin sheet metal receiver cover. At least the AR seems to have other areas that can give way and protect your face in the event of a kaboom.

I guess I can't get the first Romanian AK I ever saw out of my head. During the ban I saw some thumbhole stocked Dragunov style Romanian AK oozing cosmoline and looking like it had been pounded together by drunk monkeys with hammers. The rear sight housing was crooked, the gas tube was sitting kind of at an angle, the selector was sort of bent looking, as was the ejection port area of the receiver cover. To top it off, I hand-cycled the action and it felt like a homemade weapon for sure. I decided I wouldn't trust firing live rounds in it and didn't buy it. I know I'm exaggerating, but it reminded me of some of the expedient homemade weapons confiscated in South Africa or something (LOL).

First impressions are lasting ones and that created the bias that the AK is a little too crude for me.

Moltke

02-02-12, 16:29

So I feel I should add something to the conversation beyond mentioning Canon's balls so....

I like the AR over all other rifle platforms. The ability to push two pins and switch uppers going from 10.5" CQB rifle to an 18" SPR amazing. Same with multi-caliber options. Same with the accessories. The ability to have a rifle that is modular like that is what gives the AR it's real strength, otherwise it would have been pigeon holed into some singular role a long time ago.

Are there any other assault rifles that even come close to a capability like that?

Canonshooter

02-02-12, 16:37

So I feel I should add something to the conversation beyond mentioning Canon's balls so....

Moltke, you made my day by doing so! :smile:

CumbiaDude

02-02-12, 18:07

If you learn to swipe off the AK safety with the middle finger of your firing hand you do not need to take your hand off the pistol grip.Like Jippo mentioned, I have my thumb hooked around the back of the pistol grip (anchors my hand so I can give it all the oomph I want to disengage the safety).

In the video from Travis Haley, he started with his hand already on the safety. Cheater :D

Alaskapopo mentioned something about having to either be slow or have your hand off the grip and how that would supposedly cause issues - I mentioned that I started with my hand on the grip to show it wasn't an issue ;)

But honestly, all this talk about being caught in a societal breakdown without lube and whatnot: you'll probably be without food, water, and shelter as well.This is definitely true for me. I'm in a desert. If anything like that happens I'm going to die of dehydration. I don't worry about what to do if the world ends - I already know how I'm going to die :D

m4brian

02-02-12, 20:47

sinlessorrow

02-02-12, 21:43

Sometimes I DO have trouble in preferring ONE over the other. People who prefer the AR, do so mostly because the American tradition is for accuracy and refinement. Jack O'Connor (I believe) put it right that an accurate rifle is an interesting rifle. I have no problem with that, AND ARs are more reliable than most think.

But... I do know that in different climes, some lubes just won't cut it in an AR. Plan ahead - good. Sometimes stuff happens. That IS where the AK excels. You don't have to maintain it at all for extended periods, and some want that extra bit of reliability. Also, if we learned anything from the past 50 years of conflict, engagement ranges are much shorter than most people consider. Some areas are different. But... with more urbanization, the AK is plenty accurate.

And... it is actually more hated by liberals than ARs - that is a real plus.

you should have no issue finding lubes for the AR, all you need is ATF or Motor oil, how hard could it be?

i just dont understand your reasoning, you act like the AR wont run with lube, it will for a few hundred rounds. but motor oil and ATF are found everywhere, i have used the same 2 quarts since i do a 50/50 mix of the two and ive had the same 2 quarts for over a year and ive only used about a tenth of them

camoman

02-02-12, 22:22

you should have no issue finding lubes for the AR, all you need is ATF or Motor oil, how hard could it be?

i just dont understand your reasoning, you act like the AR wont run with lube, it will for a few hundred rounds. but motor oil and ATF are found everywhere, i have used the same 2 quarts since i do a 50/50 mix of the two and ive had the same 2 quarts for over a year and ive only used about a tenth of them

I think what m4brian is trying to say, is that if you need a rifle to work with little or no maintenance, for extended periods of time, possibly thousands of rounds, before cleaning or lube....an AK is gonna do much better in that situation than an AR. And I would have to agree. I love my AR and would not give it up for nothing....but I have owned three different AKs...and they are a bunch less finicky to changes in ammo, and most other circumstances, than an AR. The Wasr10 I own now was a serious cluster f***, when I first got it. The gas block was so far cocked to the left, that you could see it clearly, right when you looked at the rifle....see pic.
http://i1095.photobucket.com/albums/i461/camoman2/100_0818.jpg
With the gas piston grinding on the trunnion, you would think this weapon would not cycle flawlessly...but it did, without so much as a hiccup. No AKs are not tack drivers, like an AR...but I have never had no problem hitting paper with them.

MistWolf

02-03-12, 05:46

Jippo, Hakkaa päälle! and welcome to the forum. My ancestors from my mother's side hail from Finland.

Next time an AR action will not clear by simply pulling back on the charging handle, such as when a case gets stuck in the chamber, do not pound on the charging handle. Use the pogo maneuver. (Around here, they call it mortaring. Go figure :D)

First, if using a collapsible stock, collapse it to it's shortest length. Hold the forearm in one hand and place the other on the charging handle, unlock it and pull. Take the rifle muzzle up and rap the butt on a solid surface. The momentum of the BCG and pulling on the charging handle will often dislodge the stuck action. It may take a few raps and use your discretion. This method works well on a variety of self loading rifles without causing damage.

Of all the AK variants, I think the Finnish Valmet is the best and I've given serious thought to getting one. Of course, I wish I'd gotten one or three back in the day

Eurodriver

02-03-12, 06:40

Whats all this talk about lube?

Several hundred rounds?

Guys, a quality AR with quality ammo, bone dry will run for thousands of rounds.

As much as I hate to say it, I'm beginning to see what makes rob_s so irritated and grouchy. There is way too much hearsay being spread around and not enough actual experience.

http://www.defensereview.com/the-big-m4-myth-fouling-caused-by-the-direct-impingement-gas-system-makes-the-m4-unreliable/

I fired 2400 rounds of M193 through a 14.5” M4-type upper receiver from Bravo Company Manufacturing (BCM) with no lubrication, and without any rifle-caused malfunctions. So; why can I get my direct impingement rifles to repeatedly do things that conventional wisdom says they can’t do?

m4brian

02-03-12, 06:51

Anyone mortar an AK lately?

m4brian

02-03-12, 06:58

Folks: It is a design thing. Overgassed, long stroke, big ol'lugs - the kind you can clean with your pinky, and a tapered cartridge, and tolerances functioned to increase reliability - which yield less in the accuracy department (although my CAI Yugo has done 1.5" at 50 yds, 10 rounds, with crappy sights and old eyes).

The AR MAY still be "better" for most in most conditions and most Americans in particular. But in general, it is not as reliable in all conditions, even though the reliability MAY meet the standard for most.

Optimum combination of ergonomics, adaptability, accuracy in a service carbine - AR.

Utter reliability acceptable combat accuracy, soso ergos, - AK.

a1fabweld

02-03-12, 07:02

Well the last time I shot an AK it was so inaccurate that if I had access to a mortar, I would have shot the AK with the mortar. :D

camoman

02-03-12, 08:15

sinlessorrow

02-03-12, 08:49

No an AK is not as accurate...but seriously...if you can't hit the target...perhaps you should practice more often. And really, people should not get angry when confronted by the truth, about the reliability of an AR vs AK....you can argue your point until your face turns blue, it still doesn't change the proven fact that the AK is in a totally reliable under all-most all conditions, and in a different category of reliability, than even the best DI AR.

I dont even understand this.
I agree the AK is more reliable thanthe AR but the AK is not in a league of its own.
It may be more reliable and can go 10,000 rounds with zero lube but the AR will go a couple thousand.

Now tell me in SHTF EOTWAWKI when are you going to fire more than 1k rounds before a breaknin combat? If a fight kasts that long your screwed.

Cleaning the AR can be done with a tshirt if need be and no lube and youd be good for another thousand rounds and more.

Everyone says the ak is more reliable because it can go thousands longer than the ar, but tell when you would possibly go that many rounds and not be able to wipe down the bc in an ar

sadmin

02-03-12, 09:07

I could put myslef in a drug induced coma for 60 days, come out, login and this argument would still be going on. Is Camoman going to change his mind? Let me check my magic 8ball, "NOT FING LIKELY", case closed.

Jippo

02-03-12, 10:05

camoman

02-03-12, 10:25

I am seriously not try to argue with any one about the subject. I am just referring to my personal exp. I love my AR.....now. I made the mistake of purchasing a beat up Bushmaster, Noveske, Essential Arms, Frankenstein AR, from a former local gun shop, who's owner was not a very honest guy. I admit, this was all my fault for not doing enough research, before the purchase. When I first shot the beast....it was a short stroking, jamming, pos...I tried to get him to fix it, tried to return it, argued with him for like a half an hour (man I was pi****) before he told me to get the f off his property, before he called the law on me.
Long story short, after some work, and several BCM replacement parts, she runs great...and is a jamming beast no more.

With that being said...my point is...If any AR, (or most machines, for that matter) had any critical component as far out of specification, as the picture of my wasr10 above....it would not work period.

Arctic1

02-03-12, 10:53

I just don't understand why people cannot accept that owning and using a firearm is personal preference?

One can discuss the technical merits of different types of firearms all day long, but does it really, really matter?

I know that a lot of US guys hate the HK safety found on the G3 and MP-5 type weapons. I cannot understand that view at all. I've used both over a period of seven years, and going from safe to single shot was second nature. Same with the reload on my G3.

That was actually the single hardest habit to change when going from traditional HK designs over to the 416. When performing mag changes my left hand ALWAYS went for the magasine, and mag release that wasn't there. I've used the HK416 for almost 4 years now, and I really like that system. But I also like the G3, and i won't compare ergonomics, because they are different and I am proficient with both.

I've tried some different rifles over the years, G3, HK416, G36, FA-MAS, SA-80, AK's, FN-FNC (swedish AK-5). Some of them I don't really have enough time on to make a qualified judgement, but the ones I really didn't like was the G36 and the bull-pups.

Does that however mean that there aren't guys who could outshoot me with these other platforms? No.

And saying that a guy with an AR would win a duel against a guy with an AK at ranges past 300 meters is stupid, in my opinion and experience. If anything, our enemies' failure to produce good hits most of the time comes from un-zeroed weapons and shitty marksmanship fundamentals.

I read a quote in the SME section that says something along the lines of "You cannot buy skill".

An AR design isn't going to automatically make you a better shooter. You need to practice with the platform you have, and anyone with the discipline to practice regularly will become extremely proficient with the firearm they are using.

Oh, and regarding lubrication in cold climates. We use Break Free CLP in temperatures down to -50C without issue. We only start seeing problems when people excersise poor field maintenance routines, and don't protect their weapons properly. And when don't use enough lube.

orionz06

02-03-12, 10:55

I just don't understand why people cannot accept that owning and using a firearm is personal preference?

It is personal preference. I don't understand why people just can't say "I prefer ____" without some silly (and possibly erroneous) justification.

Arctic1

02-03-12, 10:59

But erroneous in whose eyes? Some of the things being discussed are hard to quantify, in my opinion.

sinlessorrow

02-03-12, 11:10

No an AK is not as accurate...but seriously...if you can't hit the target...perhaps you should practice more often. And really, people should not get angry when confronted by the truth, about the reliability of an AR vs AK....you can argue your point until your face turns blue, it still doesn't change the proven fact that the AK is in a totally reliable under all-most all conditions, and in a different category of reliability, than even the best DI AR.

I agree its prefference but i dont think the quoted statement is an opinion. He states it as if its a fact as i the AK is an infallible god and the AR is a chokig whore.

Its not a true statement, its hard to compare the reliabilit of the AR to the AK if you measure it by real world examples.

Sure the AK may win in the insane never gonna happen category like. Comepletey degreased, covered in sand and fire 10,000 rounds before cleaning, but even there the AR will get 2,000 so i wouldnt say the AK is in a league of its own, and keeping an ar lubed makes it just as reliable as an AK.

It is opinion until someone makes a vold statement like its fact.

Do i think either system is perfect? Certainly not, but i know the AR is as reliable as any other system out there to date

Canonshooter

02-03-12, 11:21

... but i know the AR is as reliable as any other system out there to date

Meanwhile, in the Tech Discussion forum -

https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=96503&highlight=grease

Jippo

02-03-12, 11:26

It is opinion until someone makes a vold statement like its fact.

...

i know the AR is as reliable as any other system out there to date

You fall in the same category right there, you are voicing your own opinions as facts.

camoman

02-03-12, 13:26

I think from over half a century of service, and real world abuse, the AK has earned its place in history, and we know where it excels and where it comes up short. Is it a weapon from the gods? no...I don't think so...although many modern platforms have copied many of the designs of the original, and incorporated them to many newer platforms. I don't think it's even close to as in accurate as alot of people believe, and I think if you are un familiar with the platform, and cannot hit your target, than I believe you need to train more often. Is it better than an AR....not by a long shot. But it is a "FACT" that the AK does some things better than an AR, just like an AR does some things better than an AK. To each his own

Alaskapopo

02-03-12, 13:36

Whats all this talk about lube?

Several hundred rounds?

Guys, a quality AR with quality ammo, bone dry will run for thousands of rounds.

[/url]
That has not been my experience. I love AR's and I have never seen one go dry for that long. Proof for your statement please.

GlockWRX

02-03-12, 13:44

I've owned several ARs over the last 15 years or so. I can count on one hand the total number of malfunctions I've had over the years in all of the ARs I own, combined. Last year I put close to 4,000 rounds through my primary AR without cleaning it, in several high round count classes. This was done in weather ranging from snowy and muddy, to hot and dusty. It did not malfunction once.

If I had an AK, I would have avoided at most 4 or 5 malfunctions over the fifteen years or so I've had an AR.

While the AK may have a theoretical advantage in certain extreme conditions, so does a 1903 Springfield. I would never, ever trade the accuracy, modularity, ergonomics, and plain old shootability that I get from the AR every single time I use it for the perceived avoidance of a malfunction in some imaginary, extreme scenario that I will never experience. Going from an AR system that is 99.98% reliable for a system that is inferior in every other way (at least for my uses) to get 99.99% reliability is not a trade I'm willing to make.

Jippo

02-03-12, 14:37

When judging AK's one has to consider the origin of rifles. I was stunned when heard from a US navy sel that the AK's they have in their weapons room were Chinese. Many here think the chinese ones are really from the bottom of the barrel, and I would have thought such an organisation would have had better judgement. We have some 100 000 un-used Chinese guns here because we got them cheap. Good for full-scale mobilisation but unfit for general issue in peace time due to their poor quality.

In the US, thanks to your import laws, nearly all the guns are in fact Franken-gun builds: collection of parts from various sources. Considering the fact that there could be quite a bit of dimension variations from nation to other it is not very optimal situation to make a rifle.

Then we have guns from Russia, DDR or Poland and the like. These are actually worth calling an AK (in my books): made the way the gun was supposed to be built. Still they suffer from the Eastern block QC, which basically means that some are good and some are, well, quite not so good. Don't tell the Russians but we have joke that describes the situation well. How do you recognise a Russian ass vibrator? Well it doesn't vibrate or fit in anyone's arse. (Sorry for being rude! :happy:) Their guns are bit better, but still... :)

In the next group we have western guns loyal to the original design like the Valmets, Galils and R4's. All are in fact of the same family. Different from the original by having better workmanship, accuracy, sights, etc... they still retain the original mechanics of an AK unchanged. These guns IMHO show what the system is capable when the execution isn't lacking. I paid 5 times the price of an Russian Ishmash AK to get mean used Sako Valmet pattern rifle. And I think I made a good deal as in my books it is five times a better rifle too.

In the last group we have rifles that copy the AK action but have put it in more modern pattern high-quality design like the (Swiss original) Sig 55x -series or the FN FNC. The retain much of the positive features of the original but also address some of the major shortcomings of it. They make excellent rifles in adverse conditions but are in ways more adaptable than the more traditional designs.

Point of this is: an AK is just not an AK! For instance: if you have only seen inaccurate AK's you haven't been exposed to good AK's. Judging a gun made in gazillion formats in dozens of countries by a small sample from one source will not give very good cross section of what this family of weapons really is.

m4brian

02-03-12, 16:35

And... some people are JUST bad shots, and/or not used to the crude trigger and sights of the AK. I admit, it takes SOME getting used to.

Recently I took my SAR-1 sorry-butt AK to the church campout for the young men and boys to shoot. (Think maybe they loved it?) My pastor's son picked it up and managed to put 4 rounds into an inch - maybe 1.25" at about 35-40 yards standing. He doesn't shoot all that much. With a little training I reckon he'd be plenty accurate for 'combat'.

CumbiaDude

02-03-12, 19:03

I was stunned when heard from a US navy sel that the AK's they have in their weapons room were Chinese. Many here think the chinese ones are really from the bottom of the barrel, and I would have thought such an organisation would have had better judgement. We have some 100 000 un-used Chinese guns here because we got them cheap. Good for full-scale mobilisation but unfit for general issue in peace time due to their poor quality.Wow, really? Some of the Chinese AKs people have here in the states are of the highest quality. It really does just come down to what the specification was when the Chinese were building their rifles. They are fully capable of manufacturing excellent weapons. You guys must've gotten the grunt rifles they made for their own conscript infantry, meanwhile we got commercial rifles they decided to charge a little more for after spending extra time.

I imagine the SEALs only use the good rifles - they must've been ones the Chinese made on a good day. :D

Jippo

02-04-12, 01:37

I got to test fire these Chinese guns we have years ago. From half a dozen people on the firing line we got 3-4 hits combined on our 150 meter targets. One of my friends was also strugling with his safety as it was extremely stiff. His folding stock gave away before the safety disengaged! They were hopeless.

Then we tested them with automatic fire. Needless to say at this point I didn't care about aiming the gun anymore and I had pretty much made my opinion about these pieces of s***. So ready to move on to other things to do I just took prone and let it rip. I had maybe 20 rounds and I didn't think there'd be a single hole in the targets. To mo surprise I had a bullseye on my target, and on an empty lane next to my spot on the left there was another hit, niner. There was no sign of the rest of the rounds, but we quickly determined that the rifle was going to be used full-auto only in the future. :)

m4brian

02-04-12, 07:29

From Vickers:

Quote:
TACTICAL TIPS

Weapon Lubrication

Far and away the most common problem I see when instructing is lack of proper lubrication. This goes for civilians, LE, and military. Of the groups I train on a regular basis military Spec Ops definitely understands the importance of lube the most but it is still common to find weapons not lubricated properly. And what I mean by properly is having lube in/on the working parts of the weapon.

Many weapon systems will not tolerate lack of lubrication and continue to function for any length of time. The US military M16/M4 family and M9 pistol are prime examples of two weapons that do not work well or for long without lubricant. Another example is tightly fitted custom or semi custom 1911 pistols. Simply put these weapons and others REQUIRE lubricant to function reliably - no way around it.

There are weapons that do not require alot of lubricant to function reliably. The AK family and Glock pistols come to mind. Also HK does extensive testing for reliable function with little or no lube so by and large HK weapons are very forgiving to lack of lubricant by design. However too many shooters rely on that as standard operating procedure and don't assess the situation correctly; these guns are designed to continue to function without lube in EXTREME (not daily) conditions but every weapon works better with lubricant.

NCPatrolAR

02-04-12, 09:12

Guys, a quality AR with quality ammo, bone dry will run for thousands of rounds.

Sometimes they will. When I'm teaching, or even taking, a class I see numerous issues that are traced back to a lack of lube on the gun. This is apparent because as soon as the gun has lubed applied then the malfs disappear.

rob_s

02-04-12, 09:34

That has not been my experience. I love AR's and I have never seen one go dry for that long. Proof for your statement please.

I'm on a slow connection right now and can't get the link to load, but if you google "Pannone defense review lube" you'll get his article on his "torture test" as some would call it.

ETA:
http://www.defensereview.com/the-big-m4-myth-fouling-caused-by-the-direct-impingement-gas-system-makes-the-m4-unreliable/

Failure2Stop

02-04-12, 10:58

Making the claim that an AR will run for thousands of rounds with no lube is trodding on very thin ice.

I am far more comfortable saying "hundreds".
I have personally done informal lube tests and the guns (well used, functional M4A1s) would generally be in trouble between 200 and 300 rounds.

I wouldn't throw the BS flag at hearing that some ARs have gone thousands of rounds with no lube, but the implication that they all will is a hard position to defend, especially with all of the alterations that we have seen in recent years to the recoil and gas systems.

Scorpion

02-04-12, 11:45

When I was shooting my AR without lubrication it took a little over 200 rounds before I needed to use the forward assist to make the weapon go into battery. This was with Remington UMC in a full length 20" rifle; I don't know if the results would be different with hotter ammunition.

ETA: just saw rob_s's post and link. I forgot about that one.

m4brian

02-04-12, 19:57

sinlessorrow

02-04-12, 20:49

Rob_s: Thanks MUCH - good article.

Don't want to derail and maybe this needs to be re-posted, but is this SIMILAR to the move to the A5 system?

And... what about carbine length vs. mid-gas?

I'll stand by the "better lube it" for the AR.

what do you mean move to A5? sadly it hasnt been adopted by anyone, but it is IMO the best stock system you can get on the market for the AR system

m4brian

02-04-12, 20:53

sinlessorrow

02-04-12, 20:58

Some have moved - I should say. I have one on one of my ARs. Just sounds like stronger spring, heavier buffer and slightly longer extension tube would add to the reliability as the article seems to point.

it certainly does, it was designed to give the reliability of the Rifle stock system(which is proven to be superior) in a collapse-able system, and in the end VLTOR came out with a more reliable system than the Rifle system. it also uses the standard A2 rifle spring

Ed L.

02-04-12, 21:10

Heavy Metal

02-04-12, 21:31

I too was wondering if they had ever been zeroed. I have one Chicom milled that must have been blessed by MTK himself because it will shoot a stosh under 2moa with good chicom ammo from a good rest. I could not believe my eyes what I saw the day I zeroed it.

96 SS

02-05-12, 00:12

3. I remember reading somewhere that FInland bought a bunch of Chinese AKs as suppliments or something or a cost saving for the reserves instead of buying Valmets. Is this true?

thanks

Yes for non-front line troops etc.

armakraut

02-05-12, 03:46

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2KjA_C8CPQ

Video of the Finns in Afghanistan.

I think they bought a bunch of Chinese AK's to issue to people in the event of a full mobilization, probably to supplement the hundreds of thousands of nearly new rk62's they already have in storage.

Front line units seem to use either Rk95, Rk62/76 rifles, which unlike the stamped M76's we got on the domestic market are just milled guns with 76 series parts. I seem to remember seeing a lot of photos of initial training of conscripts being done with Rk62's with the older stocks.

The only pictures I've seen of the chinese AK's in use really weird, they have an 18 or 20 inch barrel and bakelite stocks. They look suspiciously like polytech match rifles. Maybe the chinese had been waiting since the Bush Sr. ban to offload them?

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?119086-Finnish-Army-Photos&p=5947344&viewfull=1#post5947344

Jippo

02-05-12, 07:35

Hi. 3 questions:
1. Were these AKs sighted in or just grabbed and fired at 150 meter targets?

We checked them as much as to note that the sights were centered which will (nearly invariably) put a Valmet on paper. So not zeroed in, we didn't have the time on that instance. It was a a familisation firing.

Targets were IIRC #01 targets (5 feet square), but they could have been also #03 (3 feet square). It was years ago.

We got more than 300 000 Valmets but in the 90's out army had about half million reservists. We bought the Chinese guns as to be able to give everyone an assault rifle. Chinese ones would have been found in the lower echelons and in non-fighting units.

Here is a picture of the Chinese gun. It is called "7,62 RK 56 TP" in the army parlance, basically meaning 7,62millimeter, assault rifle, model 56, folding stock.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5b/7%2C62_RK_56_TP.JPG/800px-7%2C62_RK_56_TP.JPG
(picture from wikipedia)

Here is a link to what is really being used at the moment at FDF site. Unfortunately in Finnish, but pictures are ok and you should be able to navigate with the link tree on the left. Just click away....

http://www.puolustusvoimat.fi/portal/puolustusvoimat.fi/!ut/p/c5/vZHLjqpAFEW_xQ-4XVUCBQwLLEseBchDgYnBbnzwEBUQ5evbpJN7R9dRx7OHK_us5ByQgmdO2e24z7pjc8oqEIMUb9gUKwsTItW1uAYN14Yr2faQPhXAGsRQ3ATF42yM5egX4_LBo8rhMh24TWFgrwwnupu8SHkYtWNXDiMv5twJ2QNxFa3mS0rcIe49OnnuSl_ZGHzNIfrhWKAWdZiImKeL0AhmkRpGssAi_LLv-vIPh_8ZAkECUvlfnyFHefZDb8r8OYSWCMJfvMZrF36jS3qjS36fS__df5kgPW7rj-Gz_oAfiooUrCJJEbCoTOEUrA_J3dZbk1Aa3Hh1gk7nXAtMjP2-uFxLlG1Da1e6lSn28MuQ91ZvdVjd0jgX6ot66MjA6iy7nqS-KfNPL-lNrv056mgfwCvGh3o4RlS62LBPqlTWikc-6vNFJXm1Q7f3s7f6Is4uOfXFNWjvsyCJEGwUW1M9P73HpqmVsRga8eiuG8JJ1ycSw23QFkQTKmMZtFKz8fM2X-0iNlsjVpHJBDiLps7Bub6dqb8Y47_JyTcW9E2Q/dl3/d3/L2dBISEvZ0FBIS9nQSEh/?pcid=244ef480490e8e1db31eff39f241e429

Vitor

02-06-12, 00:28

sinlessorrow

02-06-12, 00:48

One thing I find frustrating about AR fanboys is how they claim that the AR has the softest recoil because "DI has less moving parts, it's just dirty hot gas".

Fortunetaly this claim is dying thanks to the SCAR, who everybody who shoots claim it recoil less than an AR, even though it has those "clumsy slamming pistons".

having shot the scar i have to say it has more felt recoil than a properly produced ar-15

you have to remember alot of AR's are overgassed in order to cycle shitty steel ammo and such

i also fail to understand this part "DI has less moving parts, it's just dirty hot gas". DI does have less parts and the gas gets vented out of the rifle, the carbon build up is not an issue to a DI rifle if its lubed

Jippo

02-06-12, 02:23

DI does have less parts ...

AK bolt carrier has 3 parts: carrier, piston, piston pin
AK Bolt has 6 parts: bolt, firing pin, firing pin retaining pin, extractor, extractor pin and extractor spring.

DI AR has quite a bit more parts in the BCG.

Ps. Also DI AR and H&K piston AR BCG's have about the same number of parts, give or take 1 or 2.

anthony1

02-06-12, 03:50

l've always owned AKs and only within the last year purchased an ar, a colt6920. In no order heres the only REAL meanigfull differences l can think of.

First l just gotta briefly adress accuracy issue.

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.

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.

Neither were intended to be bench rest rifles, and both are capable of making hits on a man sized target out to 2-300yds easily. That seems good enough for me.

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.

The AK fire a much more capable barrier defeating round. If your shooting through cars, houses, glass, thick brush or any type of barrier the 762x39 perfoms much better.

The AR can easily be switched from 556 to 22lr, 6.8, 300ac etc, to easily do that with an AK, you buy another AK.

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.

Iraqgunz

02-06-12, 06:48

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

l've always owned AKs and only within the last year purchased an ar, a colt6920. In no order heres the only REAL meanigfull differences l can think of.

First l just gotta briefly adress accuracy issue.

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.

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.

Neither were intended to be bench rest rifles, and both are capable of making hits on a man sized target out to 2-300yds easily. That seems good enough for me.

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.

The AK fire a much more capable barrier defeating round. If your shooting through cars, houses, glass, thick brush or any type of barrier the 762x39 perfoms much better.

The AR can easily be switched from 556 to 22lr, 6.8, 300ac etc, to easily do that with an AK, you buy another AK.

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.