Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'AK & SKS Discussion' started by HoundDog, Oct 4, 2007.
What is more reliable? I have heard the AK is more reliable than the M16... any ideas why?
generally more accurate
less damaging, but more prone to ricochet and bounce (could be good)
long range accuracy, too
heavy (could be good for aiming)
wood stock (for a club when you run out of ammo i suppose)
easier to field strip
more 'reliable' as in.. you can put mud inside the action of an ak47 and it'll still fire... this isn't so with an ar15 because the AR has smaller moving parts that are prone to jamming because of foreign materials (mud).
So, in essence, if you're in a situation where you can take good care of your firearm (clean/lube and such) the AR15 might be the better choice, but if you were lost in the wilderness or in the middle of a muddy battlefield the AK47 would be more reliable.
This post may help you make a decision: http://www.warrifles.com/forums/showthread.php?t=47458
The AK is more reliable hands down.
The gas system is so pressurized and open in an AK that it has pressure to spare to run the action, that's why the star shape gas tube. The Piston is driving the bolt carrier back the full length of travel.
In an AR the gas is running through a small diameter tube with ID of about 1/8", and after about an inch of rearward travel of the bolt carrier; the tube's disconnected from the carrier. Also, there is no gas piston in the AR, the AR is essentially a gas-assist system in that the pressure in the tube transfers to the bolt carrier creating high pressure between the bolt and carrier (the bolt is a piston inside the carrier's cylinder) driving the carrier back unlocking the bolt.
In my opinion, it's a pretty worthless system. If you want accuracy; get a bolt action - for half the price.
Oh yeah, and this is comical but true stuff here: http://7.62x54r.net/MosinID/MosinHumor.htm
Neither the AK or AR is the winner.
I can't agree with "better sights" , that is all personal preferance.
I have a hard time aquiring a target with the AR sights, you look through a little hole and when you line it up, the little hole is filled up!!!
With the AK, I am not blinded by the sight, plus it allows you to see if your target blew up or not.
as for reliability the ak wins hands down, but I must disagree with csteinman about damage. The .223 was designed to cause damage, it bounces off bone and causes internal damage, so even if the entry point is not at a vital point it could still possible cause fatal injury, on the other hand the 7.62x39 is a heavy bullet that cuases a high percentage of through and through wounds, so in other words if it does not hit a vital area it is highly survivable.
For this, you would just have to listen to actual accounts.
The .223, from what I have heard, is not known for it's stopping power in the field.
About the design, the internal damage part might be somewhat true, but it is secondary, the primary goal of the .223 cal bullet was to limit penetration to avoid collateral damages.
With this being the case, I would want the round with the most kE, atleast you have a chance to knock the target off their feet, let them know they have been hit.
M16 / Ak
This rates right up there with the Ford and Chevy debate. Either rifle will handle a typical armed conflict. Which one you feel most comfortable with is really the only question worth answering.
The AK is easier for a beginner to master. Given 30 minutes someone can be taught all they need to know about an AK. It is simple to use and maintain, and #1 it's cheaper.
The M16 is a different animal. It is capable of better accuracy and better range, but it demands better care and training, and #1 it's more expensive.
why cant ya have both? If I am on American Soil give me my AR, if i am over seas give me the AK , all comes down to what ammo you can get in a hurry
You can almost have both....buy an AK in .223
No, the .223 doesn't have the same "knock-down power of the 7.62x39, but that was not in the design parameters of that round. We were looking for something that was "lighter", hence more load carrying capacity (rounds) for the infantry man carrying that weapon.
As for penetration, the theory was that the round would penetrate then bounce around in the body, causing possibly fatal wounds, or enough of one to incapacitate that person, causing possibly the loss of service of a few of his comrades as they tended to their wounded or carried them out. This was all in the original theory, not always practiced in the field, as they often left their wounded behind if need be.
The AK is by far the most reliable design in a combat weapon and has been since the 1940's. No, it isn't as accurate as an AR can be, but it wasn't designed for that. It was designed to deliver lead, and does so very well. In the hands of someone that is experienced with it, and within the range it was intended to be used at, it is as lethal as anything out there. The AK's in 5.45x39 can be as light as alot of AR's, specially with poly stocks on them.
The AR, again, is more accurate, requires more maintenance, but is far more FLEXIBLE. You can easily modify an AR to fit most needs. Stocks and pistol grips, rail systems, trigger groups, etc. are easily changed, allowing you to add accessories like optics, lasers, vertical grips, flare launchers, etc. You can even buy or assemble different uppers that can be swapped back and forth on one lower receiver to fit the need again, whether it be Tactical and short for convenience, or a long range/target/varmint upper for reaching out and touching something. This is something that is not easily done on any AK.
There are many other differences, pros/cons, it's all in what fits your needs best.
Hell.... the best one is one that you can actually use and hit the target with
I've never entered this ak v. ar debate because I've never been trained one either. The navy wasn't big on that in my day. However, I have followed the ar jamming problem since vietnam. Here's what a young marine that just got back from fallujah told me on a political forum we are both on. This is his answer to my query "is the m-16, m-4 platform still jamming?"
"Yes. sorta. nothing like what they were doing, but the M16 weapons family is still prone to jamming more than the AK47 weapons suite. Eugene would be a better source to ask.
the most common causes of M16 jamming is still improper weapons maintenance, cheap ammunition, and improper care of ones' magazines. you have to take good care of the springs themselves in order to ensure proper feeding one major problem is that the powder used in the 5.56 ball ammunition is a "hot wet" powder, that is, it will help the weapon stay lubed lo long as it is continuously firing; but as soon as it has a chance to cool it solidifies into a hard solid black gunk. basically you have to clean the weapon every time you have a greater than 30 minutes pause in firing (for example, and engagement at the beginning of a mission means you have to clean it enroute or else by the end of the mission you have potentially highly problematic weapon). (emphasis mine)
another major issue i have with the M16 weapon suite is the ammunition itself, firstly the caliber is small and fast it is supposed to create greater shock throughout the body , but that only works if it doesn't zip right through; which the ammunition is far more likely to do. 7.62 has greater stopping power, but the AK is less accurate at distance. an M14 would be a good choice; or if you are looking at the M16 system itself i understand that Special Forces are having great success with experimental 6.8 caliber rebarreling of the M4, and H&K has upgraded the gas system and chamber o their standards and rebarrelled the upper receiver to 7.62."
Forty years and this is the best our military establishment can do?
Granted I never spent any time in the sandbox, but I had very few problems with any of the M16's that I used while I was in. The few problems that I did have were during the use of blanks and it was easy and quick to fix. However, I am borderline obsessive-compulsive when it comes to keeping my weapons clean. During the time I was a SAW gunner, people were amazed at how few problems I had with old Betsy. It was simple. I cleaned it pretty much whenever I had some down time.
That being said, I'm buying an AK just as soon as I can.
I presently own both types of rifles. I have 4 AR-15s and 1 SAR-1 rifle. When I was in Viet Nam I used both of them over there while working with a Recon Platoon. If you do your research, you find that both rifles were originally designed to do different jobs right from the start. The AK-47 was actually designed to be used in built-up area combat by the Russian Army. The M-16 originally started out as a rifle to be used by USAF security police around missle silos. Neither rifle was actually meant to be an MBR or main battle rifle. Both of these rifles have been modified, read "jury rigged," to do other jobs and to pretend to be MBRs. The AK was not designed to meet long range shooting needs because urban combat seldom involves long range shooting over 150 meters. For urban combat you need a short rifle that has an effective bullet that can punch through wood and plaster board when needed. The bullet should be of medium size, say about a .30 caliber in case a soldier needs to effectively drop an enemy soldier at fairly close range. Hence, the 7.62 X 39 cartridge and bullet. Now where things really got messed up was back in the 1960s with Robert McNamara and his infamous Whiz Kids. McNamara had been a CEO of some car company who had made some radical changes to improve the finances of the company. What he did was standardize a lot of things within the company that he had ran. He thought that this was a great idea to use on our military. So he and his Whiz Kids decided that our military forces should only have 1 rifle, the M-16, as a primary gun. They also decided that the USAF, the USN and the USMC could all go to using one airplane, the F-4 Phantom, for ground support and combat in Viet Nam. This is why our military forces ended up with the M-16 in spite of warnings against the jam-o-matic piece of garbage. So what both military groups have done over the years is "made do" and "stretch the limits" of these two rifles without actually improving the plight of their soldiers. Keep in mind that a lot of military gear is designed more by budgeting politicians in Washington, D.C., than it is by the soldiers who need to use it. Read up on how the M-1 Abrams tank came to be and all the political, Ted Kennedy, crap that was involved in that issue. I seriously believe that the military force that actually starts to listen to the troops in the field about the designs and needs of they, the soldiers, have will be the one that comes up with the next really great rifle. My opinion is that we need a rifle about the general shape and length of a Mini-14 but one that shoots a slightly larger, say around a .270 or .280 caliber, bullet than the present .223/5.56 wimp. The bullet should weigh in at about a 130+ grains and have a realistic and effective 500 to 550 yards of working distance to it. Magazines for the rifle should hold 10, 20, 30 and 40 rounds with an 80 or 90 round drum available to use in the rifle too. Barrels on the new rifle should be interchangable for different lengths and different uses. A short barrel for a carbine, a longer one for a rifle and an even longer one for a precision sniper rifle with an attached scope mounted right on the barrel. The rifle should be able to effectively function in the cold of the Arctic and the heat of the Sahara. The bolt should be shielded like the AK or the FN/FAL rifles.
I kind of think this argument is mute, only because you can't have a definitive answer. The AR is gas powered, the AK is piston driven - they aren't the same animal.
A Piston or Op Rod type of weapon is inherently less accurate, but more reliable. A gas powered system is more accurate, and less "reliable" if you don't maintain it. You are sacrificing one for the other.
A lot of AR manufacturers are coming out with new uppers that are Op Rod driven, as is H&K with their .416AR ( .223 ) and .417AR (.308 ) platforms.
The AK is probably the most widely copied/produced assault weapon on the planet, so it has clones and parts/accessories everywhere. That being said, I don't own one.
The AR has a ton of parts available here in the states, and with it being .223, every police station, military armory, sporting goods and gun shop has ammo for it.
I think down and dirty, with no time to maintain and your running for your life, picking up an AK probably would treat you right for a time, but in the long run a property tuned and maintained AR is a better bet.
One thing to consider, is the craftsmanship factor. Check out this [ame=http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b9c_1201440552]video[/ame] and listen to the background voices after the event. You can actually hear someone say the words "That is the second person I have seen that happen too".
Scary stuff to say the least....
Generally speaking the AK is more reliable, but I have found that the differences in reliability and accuracy between these two rifles is exaggerated greatly for advocates of either side to justify their choice.
I enjoy both platforms and know that they are both very capable in the right hands.
I prefer the AR15 for me personally.
There is a good reasons some African countries actually have the AK-47 on their national flag. I own both the Ak-47("YUGO"M-70) and a Bushmaster .223. For all those who were discussing "STOPPING POWER" ETC..... a TAP(police) .223 is devastating and can be more damaging to the internal organs than even the 7.62x39 in FMJ. On the other hand the bullets i put in my AK-47 Yugoslavian m70 are Hollow Point and are easily 5 times as deadly as any .223 in FMJ or any 7.62x39 in FMJ. NOW.........when both are in Hollow Point or TAP (police tactical) i would go with the AK-47 simply because it does much more damage(I have harvested Wild Hog with both rifles and can say with certainty that the AK-47 round is much more devastating) Also...even though the AR-15 is more accurate overall(not by much though) the AK packs a bigger punch and is,..in my experience...much more failsafe than the AR-15 and although heavier, the AK is much easier to control in full auto mode and has much less kick.
An AK-47 is not often seen in competetive shooting events - there's a reason for that. Innaccuracy. The Russians moved from the AK-47 (7.62 x 39) to the AK-74 chambered for the 5.45 x 39to increase range and accuracy. Even chambered in .223 , the AK-74 can only aqchieve 3" moa. The AR-15 on the pther hand is widely used in competitive shooting events such as the Camp Perry service rifle events. Reliability hasn't been an issue since the mid-60's when the early M-16's were sent to Vietnam without chrome lined chambers/barrels and back when the military was using the wrong powder. Any automatic weapon needs to be kept clean, especially when your life depends on it.
I have a RRA w/20" Stainless Bull Barrel, NM Trigger and NM sights - there is no AK-47 or AK-74 that was ever made that would even come CLOSE to the accuracy of that AR-15. I have a Yugo Mod. 59/66 which I bought unissued and packed in cosmoline, which is more accurate than any AK-47 by virtue of it's much longer barrel, and it doesn't come close to the accuracy of ANY AR-15. Additionally, the ballistics of the 7.62 x 39 make it impossible to compete with the .223 at almost any range beyond 100 yds. Loaded with 69 gr. Sierra HPBT ammo, I can group less than 1/2" at 100 yds. No AK-47 will do that. 2-4" at 100yds is considered accurate for an AK. Less kick? Impossible! Recoil is a function of mass and velocity - and "felt recoil" has the weight of the gun factored in - the .223 bullet weighs half as much as the 7.62 and the AR-15 is a heavier gun, which means it absorbs more recoil, it also has a recoil buffer which the AK doesn't have. My SKS kicks much more than my AR and the SKS is heavier than any AK. Also, HP bullets driven at higher velocities fragment more violently than HP ammo driven at slower velocities. Since the average 7.62 x 39 round travels at almost 800fps less than the average .223 round, and since the .223 round is lighter, basic physics tells you that the .223 round will fragment faster and more violently when entering the same medium. In a more accurate platform, a HP 7.62 would do more damage at longer ranges because it retains more energy, but at those ranges you couldn't hit the target with an AK-47. Spray and Pray - that's what the AK is about. The smartest thing our military did was change from full -auto to 3 rd. burst.
perspective while shooting will vary.
One thing i can say with absolute certainty is that you folks here at Firearms Talk know your guns and type LONG posts! LONGGGGGGG.
Anyway when I fire the AK it SEEMS to have less kick than the Mini-14. Maybe not on paper or in a lab but from MY vantage point and nervous system the AK was kicking harder. It may have been the Sticky Icky Green talking or maybe it was the beer. BTW i dont endorse drinking and shooting and am not proud to have done it, so i dont want to see any angry posts about drinking and shooting or Juniors On Call Kicking Idiots That Come-shoot Here drunk. AKA. J.O.C.K I.T.C.H. society of America members ETC.
I still prefer the AK-47 if for no other reason than........It is close enough in quality to the AR-15 or of better quality or most of the wars being fought all over the world as we speak would be much more one sided than they are. Vietnam for instance. Basically it is like trying to choose a dead game American Pit Bull Terrier over another dead game American Pit Bull Terrier that is matched to it 5lbs. downhill.