Another AK vs AR Thread?

[Kain]

I prefer the AR, because of the rifles, or for that matter guns, that I own I have more time behind it then any other rifle that is suitable for defensive work. Also I feel that where I am at the AR has more parts, ammo, and accessories readily available for me to repair and set up the platform as I need, also perhaps most importantly, all those I work with and would be fighting beside run the AR as well. As far as the AK vs AR argument goes however, my biggest issue is that most guys I deal with who will defend the AK as the end all rifle think that a Century Arms AK is as good as a Russian and they think that a $300 Century POS will out preform and outlast, out shoot, and run longer then any AR out there. Considering I have seen few issues with quality ARs and many times many issues with Century AKs I find it difficult to believe that they Century will outlast me. I find their arguments to be kind of stupid and on other forums I have yet to see any of them respond to anything of sense or meaning when I have brought in Pat Roger's Filthy 14 when they claim the AR is unreliable and jam all the time.

Now, if we were to base the argument on a quality AK, say a premier russian one, or whoever makes the best, and the best AR on the planet, or even just a good BCM I would say its a toss up and user preference. Though I would still give the edge to the AR for modulararity and adaptability. But, everything held constant, we being in the US, and all that I see no reason why you would choose a rifle that is not standard and with ammo readily available. It would be like someone saying that they would take the P90 because it looks cool and not look at the things long run.

My personal experience with the AK though is that some are quite accurate, would say decent hunting rifle accuracy from a select few. So I believe the statement that they are more accurate then given credit for, though I still feel the round does not have the reach that the AR's 5.56 has. I still want a decent AK to have though, they aren't bad guns, when you get a good one, and they are fun to shoot and play with. They just aren't the end all rifle out there, then again neither is the AR, all have issues, and there has yet to be a perfect rifle, at least not that I have found.

[armakraut]

Haven't seen any Kalashnikovs with accuracy problems, seen plenty of incompetent trigger pullers operating them.

[zb39]

I just have more time on AR's. I also think they are more accurate at the ranges I would be shooting. The AK is nice, it;s accurate also, I just like the AR more. More user friendly for me. Thompson etc is fun to shoot and has its place, but if i only get 1 it an AR. BAR is a blast but heavy. They are all diff tools, most are very good at 1 job. Some can perform more than 1 job reasonably well. There are always tradeoffs. Everyones milage will vary.

[HackerF15E]

Haven't seen any Kalashnikovs with accuracy problems, seen plenty of incompetent trigger pullers operating them.

Certainly seen plenty of the same with Mr Stoner's rifle/carbine, as well.

[nineteenkilo]

Living where I currently live I have to give the nod to the AR platform. Better chance for scrounging parts and ammo should the need arise in my AO.

If I lived in an area where the AK platform was more prevalent, I'd choose it for same reasons.

Same goes for any FAL/NATO areas.

Accuracy be damned if I'm out of parts and ammo.

[northern1]

In either platform its about quality and proficiency and the rest is user preferance as has been stated. Logistics also play a roll.

It is one hell of an age old debate though and I think it mostly derives from the 2 platforms constantly going head to head with each other in countless world conflicts for the last 5-6 decades.

I own both and honestly I couldn't argue with anyone which is best because I argue with myself about which one is going witth me on that day comes.

[jet80tv]

Like the one poster said, they are so similar in their application. It's not like any of the issue bolt actions of opposing forces vs "The" M1 Garand during WWII, there was no comparison, not even close. The AR & AK don't differ so greatly, yes in actual terms of operation and mechanism they do.

[mkmckinley]

All else aside the AK has a safety that's much harder/slower to operate than the one on the AR.

Also I can repair an AR with some basic spare parts and tools I have in my garage.

[skyugo]

i love the AR for the ergonomics, the sights and the modularity (you can do crazy stuff like adding an optic and a light without having to go full bubba)

the AK can certainly make hits... i just always felt like i was fighting with mine to shoot it effectively. I'll have to pick one up again someday, I've grown quite a bit as a shooter since i sold it 3 years ago.

[Alaskapopo]

Sounds like you are simply repeating information that you were told, rather than what you actually know from personal experience.

I can assure you that you are dead wrong, as I have personally shot an AK out to 600 yards with great success.


Here is a thought.... Instead of simply repeating things that are untrue, why not go out and shoot an AK for a couple days to find out for yourself, before you make yourself look even less credible...

The AK's I have owned run from 4 to 8 MOA. My current Saiga is the best of the bunch but its a 4 moa gun. So the poster is not that far off based on my actual experience. I keep hearing about more accurate AK's but have yet to fire them. They are good rifles but accuracy is not their strength.
Pat