AR vs AK?

I prefer shooting the AR over the AK with it's lighter recoil and greater accuracy it's just more fun.
If I was in a survival situation i'd probably take the AK.
I have no doubt the AR-15 is more suitable for target shooting. But, while I've never been in combat I have heard things from individuals who have, including my father who fought through the Pacific during WW-II, and based on things they've said about combat conditions I have a clear impression the AK is a more reliable weapon.
 
Last edited:
For this kind of thing, I like the high mag pistols. Because of where I live, I don't get to use the big weapons as I'd like.

Shooting 9mm is cheaper, for sure. I recommend the .22lr mossberg.

I like the sound AK's make and the way the wooden surplus-style guns feel when you fire them. A baby bush 223 was the closest that I have come to an AR. Round cost indeed.
I've never even seen or handled either an M-16, an AR-15 or an AK-47. Based on all I've read and heard from experienced individuals the AK is more suitable for combat conditions. But my preference for it strongly includes an aesthetic factor. The wood stock and forearm make a big difference (to me).

I've never cared for the cold and complicated-looking, all metal, futuristic look of the M-16 and AR-15, so I wouldn't care to own either one. But the AK, in addition to its reputation as a dependable weapon under wet and dirty conditions, is good to look at, too.
 
Overall, the AK wins. It is just a great and dependable rifle. It dont malfunction and it does not jam. And todays AKS are more accurate out to 300 yards and beyond, more than they were 20 or 30 years ago.
[...]
What you've said conforms with something I read in a Shotgun News article I read a few years back when I was considering buying a Chinese import AK-47 for $299. The article I read in the same issue, combined with the fact that I don't shoot much anymore, changed my mind.

The writer basically said AK-47s are made all over the world and its reputation for deficient accuracy is based on the performance of the cheaper ones, which are carelessly manufactured.
 
Mizzu, you really think that was a fair video? He took a part from the guy field stripping the AK and the guy STILL beat the M16 guy!! lol
 
I myself prefer the AK because with the money you save you can by more mags. And I like having a bag full of pre-loaded mags. When you are shooting say rats at the dump you simply do not have time to load mags. I myself have 20 so that is 600 rounds ready to go at 30 per.

Now the AK DOES need some light work IF you are shooting Chinese with Russian mags. A quick dremel takes care of that. So which do you prefer and why?












I prefer HK and FN. I own at least one of all of them, but if it's my life on the line I'll take my G3 any day of the week.
 
For this kind of thing, I like the high mag pistols. Because of where I live, I don't get to use the big weapons as I'd like.

Shooting 9mm is cheaper, for sure. I recommend the .22lr mossberg.

I like the sound AK's make and the way the wooden surplus-style guns feel when you fire them. A baby bush 223 was the closest that I have come to an AR. Round cost indeed.
I've never even seen or handled either an M-16, an AR-15 or an AK-47. Based on all I've read and heard from experienced individuals the AK is more suitable for combat conditions. But my preference for it strongly includes an aesthetic factor. The wood stock and forearm make a big difference (to me).

I've never cared for the cold and complicated-looking, all metal, futuristic look of the M-16 and AR-15, so I wouldn't care to own either one. But the AK, in addition to its reputation as a dependable weapon under wet and dirty conditions, is good to look at, too.
I like the wood, too. I had a heavy SKS like that. I fired a friend's AK. You can tell and hear that the AK and SKS are more powerful.

Rifles look better to me when there's no banana coming out the bottom. How many people are coming to kill me anyhow? I've got a basic .308 that I could dust off for the longer range. If the zombies get in close or get inside, I'll take my versamax over any AK.
 
All things considered I would prefer the M-14 to either.

But that wasn't the topic of this thread, was it?

Maybe not but the M-14 was the US issue rifle at the start (for us) of Vietnam and still was the issue rifle for USMC personnel when I was there in '70 as well as (the match version) US Army snipers. Most Marines I talked to would have never considered exchanging their M-14 for an M-16. The M-14 continues to be a "special" issue item and continues to see service in the ME. I am far from being the only one who considers it the best tactical rifle.
 
One of the reasons I like an AR is that I can buy a separate upper and be able to change from short barreled CQB rifle to a longer barreled rifle capable of accurate shots out to 500 yards.

That said, like 9thIDdoc, I would prefer an M-14 too.
 


I feel like Gunny...AK-47? Yuck.

I have an AR...the bad guys shoot AKs.



Former Delta Force - Larry Vickers.



I cannot find the video - but Larry Vickers done a comparison of the AK-47 and the M-4 on a cinder block ; for the tv show " weaponology " The .223 did not go completely through a cinder block but the 30 caliber AK round did.

The AK wins for me. Intermediate accuracy and energy to get the job done. The AK-47 & SKS is very lethal.

Shadow 355
 
I myself prefer the AK because with the money you save you can by more mags. And I like having a bag full of pre-loaded mags. When you are shooting say rats at the dump you simply do not have time to load mags. I myself have 20 so that is 600 rounds ready to go at 30 per.

Now the AK DOES need some light work IF you are shooting Chinese with Russian mags. A quick dremel takes care of that. So which do you prefer and why?


Everyone who knows weapons will choose an AK unless they have a financial stake in American weapons. There is no comparison, one's objectively better top to bottom.

AR is useless if you drop it in the dirt, don't become an expert cleaning it, or in inclemate weather conditions (as happened in Vietnam with soldiers dying because it's a pos.)

AK can be dropped in the dirt, sand, mud and shaken clean and is still combat effective. Plus the ammo's superior as well. As has been said you can clean an AK with your finger and shirt.



Pretty much every statement you made is absolutely ridiculous. I started out with an M14 and when the 16s came out I had one. The initial problems were with the ammo NOT the weapon. I carted mine through every rice paddy, every ox path and through every bush in the Ashau Valley. It never once let me down.

Comparing the AK to the AR is goofy, too. Muzzle velocities and ammo are completely different. That is, unless you wish to compare an AR-10 (7.62) to the AK. That would be a better comparison.

When using the AR (or M4) variety with 62gr shells, I can take out ANY target the AK can (and some) that the AK can't. Additionally, sighting platforms for the AK are so far behind the times that it's nearly impossible to find good, reliable platforms for the rifle. Unlike the Mosin Nagante, the AK is EXTREMELY unstable when firing groups of 3 whereas the AR is stable as it can be.

I have killed with both rifles. I'll take the AR platform any day, but that's MY opinion.
 
If the choice were between an M-16 A-1 and an AK I would have to go with the M-16. The A-1 version and a change in ammo corrected most of the problems of the early run M-16s. The M-16 is more accurate and more controllable in full auto. Both the weapon itself and the ammo for it are lighter handier and less of a pain to carry over time and distance. In my day carrying an AK carried the risk of being mistaken for a bad guy which might not end well.
I can't say I'm all that wild about the 5.56 round but otherwise it is about all you could ask for in a (for real) assault rifle. The M-14 is a better battle rifle.


You make outstanding points. (1) the battle load of ammo is FAR lighter than with the AK and (2) Both rifles have their own distinct sound (as we all know). It wouldn't be hard to be mistaken for a bad guy. The one time I had trouble with the 16 was when it was hit in the lower by a stray round and I had to dump it. Closest weapon was an AK and I used it. When we returned to the fire base - I got another 16.
 
Last edited:
I myself prefer the AK because with the money you save you can by more mags. And I like having a bag full of pre-loaded mags. When you are shooting say rats at the dump you simply do not have time to load mags. I myself have 20 so that is 600 rounds ready to go at 30 per.

Now the AK DOES need some light work IF you are shooting Chinese with Russian mags. A quick dremel takes care of that. So which do you prefer and why?



one of each

you never know what is going to be left laying around

if it comes to that
 
I own an AK and 2 AR15 carbines in 5.56. While I have a lot of fun with the ARs and have them both outfitted with extras (eg, Eotech sights, flash lights, grips, bipods...), I think that in a real survival situation I will pick up my AK. I have had it for years and have run literally thousands of rounds through it with no problems (except periodically running across a cheap assed Russian cartridge that fails to fire). It is a dependable workhorse and is accurate as hell up to, and a little over, 100 yards.

My 3 go to pieces for the end of the world are my AK, my Glock 17, and my Smith .357 revolver.
 

Forum List

Back
Top