Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Auto & Semi-Auto Discussion' started by PeteZaHut, May 12, 2012.
If reliability and ruggedness is important to you, is an AK always going to be the better option?
reliability is #1 in my book , if its accurate to .10 moa but isnt reliable then it doesnt matter how accurate it is . As far as ruggedness ? they will take a beating but you also dont want to try to pry a door open with the barrel of either wether its a AR or AK . I myself am a AR fan , Im just not a fan of stamped steel and I prefer the accuracy of the AR over my buddies AK
AR's have come a really long way in terms of reliability. For me I would always choose the AR over the AK. And for the argument of the AK having more stopping power, I say that say that great shot placement with an AR would always solve that.
I have both and have never had an issue with either! But due to accuracy and ease of operation as well as component availability, I would choose the AR hands down. A good quality AR is very reliable and they have came a long way.
In the past I was involved with a government testing program where the AR was involved. They literally threw them against walls, dropped them on concrete on all sides, sprayed they with salt water solution, heated them, froze them, and buried them in sand and the rifles still worked. The rifles that passed the testing was the Rock River. Which says a lot for them. It resulted in a 25,000 rifle government contract. I have several ARs including an older Colt, a few Rock Rivers and Sabre Defense 6.5 Grendel and 5.56s, And ARs are very reliable and durable. The AK is also very reliable as mentioned since I have had zero problems with them as well. Of course a many a good rifle has been tagged as unreliable simply due to bad magazines. Magazines are the *Number 1 cause of AR and AK rifle malfunctions! I guess I would say it comes down to personal preference! I would not be hesitant about either for defense or a combative situation. If SHTF I would choose the AR since more parts would be available throughout the country that you could acquire if traveling about as well as 223 or 5.56 ammunition.
Not only that but an AK requires heavier shop tools to repair. Whens the last time you had to press off an AR barrel or gas block? I can carry all the tools required to assemble an AR including the parts for an entire AR in my range bag. I don't think a floor mounted press would fit.
This topic needs to be a sticky or not allowed as it seems to come up every week or 2.
I doubt you'll see any practical difference in reliability between the two.
The modern AR platform is reliable in the extreme.
That was also the conclusion of the military channel, which rated the AK-47 (and subsequent AK-74) the #1 all time "combat rifle."
The other guns that made their list below the AK-47 are interesting to compare, because they fall into certain design catogories:
Bolt-action clip-loaded: 1898 Mauser 98, 1891 Mosin Nagant, 1903 Springfield.
Semi-auto clip-loaded: 1895 Enfield 303, 1933 M-1 Garand.
Semi-auto magazine fed: Sturmgewehr 44, AK-47, M-14, M-16
Modern bull-up battle rifles: Steuer AUG, FN FAL, M-4.
My own personal all time favorite is the M-14 however, rather than any of the above. Primarily because the M-14 is everything that the AK-17 is, only the M-14 is much more accurate at longer ranges.
The AK-47 is a spray and pray weapon, so it requires more ammo than the one shot one kill M-14.
And that's one man's opinion. Remember, the "top ten" lists are made up by the opinions of a few like minded folks. They're not based on scientific testing. While I find them very interesting to watch, I take their conclusions with a large grain of salt.
I like repeating my opinion over and over. AR AR AR AR. I forget now, what was the question? Oh yeah, it doesn't matter...AR is the answer.
There's no fault in fact. I saw a cool bumper sticker today. It read,Truth Has No Agenda.
Shoobee, you're probably the guy who reads gun magazines reviews and believes they're unbiased.
I also have both and I have to say a quality AR is as reliable as an AK. The AR also has many advantages that have been already discussed above.
Now if you're going with an ultra cheap AK vs. ultra cheap AR, well then you can expect the WASR or Saiga will be reliable. That may not be the case with the $500-600 AR.
One other issue to mention concerning my consideration between the two systems is as follows. The AR and the AK.
Since parts are standard on the AR. I would choose the AR hands down due to the fact that a part for one brand of AR fits another without any modification what so ever making repair parts availability a primary benefit. There are so many brands of AK manufacturers in the industry and not all parts are interchangeable between them. There are a ton of AR parts in circulation out there in the US in almost every city and town that could be used to get your weapon repaired. Juts another thought!
I am not saying the AK is a bad weapon quite the contrary but just weighing out the benifits of the AR.
My favorite guns are the ones I can easily take down to all of its parts pretty easily without many tools. AR-15 and 1911 fall into that category. My carry guns don't. I don't think an AK does either...am I right?
An ak47 you can get the gas tube bolt carrier/piston easily after that its a huge struggle. Ar15 if you have had a set of legos or lincoln logs you can work on the inner parts of a ar15 easily.
It's a popular question, but IMHO you're comparing apples to oranges.
The AR is a much more accurate rifle in a much lighter caliber.
The AK is cheaper, and fires a heavier, older generation, intermediate round.
The AK shines in dependability, for a cheap, mass produced gun.
It's as easy to field strip and clean an AK in the field as it is to find AR
parts in a store. I feel the AK has an advantage in reliability in the field.
But not too many of us wind up in that field, anymore, do we?
Well when given the choice between an apple and an orange, I'd take the apple everytime. Haha.
As for the "in the field" issue, I did specifically have "the field" in mind (whatever that may potentially be). I'm interested in eventually buying an AR or AK as my government breakdown/foreign invasion/natural disaster gun, or a survival gun (whatever you want to call it, however unlikely one of those situations may be). That's why I specifically had reliability in mind in case the gun has to be out in the elements all the time as opposed to being in a closet.
From my experience the AK-47 is more reliable. But I love them both. If the SHTF I would use my AK-47 first until it was wore out then go with my AR, if it ever would get wore out
I'm an AK guy, (actually SKS, yes totally different design)
but that doesn't mean
ARs aren't also great, in many respects...
I have training and experience with both. I think it would come down to what the shooter is most proficient with and can operate in any condition day or night, wet, dry, dusty or cold environment. AR's have accuracy hands down, AK's have better stopping power. If you anticipate an urban conflict with house to house or room to room combat an AK might be preferred. If your going to be able to maintain security from a distance AR sounds better.
Personally I think the perfect SHTF weapon would be a Saiga 12. You can find this ammo literally everywhere ammo could possibly be. You have the option on heavy ammo for large game, people, zombies, etc or you can use bird shot to acquire a smaller meal if that's what's available. A simple magazine swap is all it takes to change the game plan. Take it for what you want, just my 2 cents.
Now me, I'd be more likely to opt for the SKS with the 10-round
internal mag, and nothing tacticool or fancy.
But I'd be trying to survive the event, not
slug it out with everybody in a 20 mile radius
with a weapon. Gettin' too old for that...