9thIDdoc
Gold Member
- Aug 8, 2011
- 7,956
- 3,114
- 325
M1A Hard to beat
Loaded M1A™ | Buy Tactical Semi Automatic Rifles
Loaded M1A™ | Buy Tactical Semi Automatic Rifles
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
M1A Hard to beat
Loaded M1A™ | Buy Tactical Semi Automatic Rifles
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.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'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).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.
All things considered I would prefer the M-14 to either.
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.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.
[...]
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 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.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).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 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.
All things considered I would prefer the M-14 to either.
But that wasn't the topic of this thread, was it?
I feel like Gunny...AK-47? Yuck.
I have an AR...the bad guys shoot AKs.
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.
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.
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?