AK-47 vs. AR-15 - The Small Arms Showdown [INFOGRAPHIC]
- Thread starter lukem
- Start date
gunnerbob
PEW Professional
The service life numbers are complete horsesh!t... there are thousands of AKs in Afghanistan that've been in service since my Dad was born. He's 55 years old... Go around the world and take note of how many M16s from the 70's you see in working order, then do the same for AKs. I hate these comparisons, pointless really... Each weapon brings strengths to the combat table, with associated weaknesses. Me, I prefer the AK for what I value in a combat weapon.
jameshd
CMFWIC
Had an M-16 jam on me once, but managed to un-jam it and get out of the situation. The next time it jammed, I ended up having to use a knife to get out of the situation. So I picked up a slightly used AK-47 and used it for the rest of my tour. It never jammed. I haven't touched either one since I got back to the World.
gunnerbob
PEW Professional
There is a good chance that millions of those AKs used in Veitnam are still in use around the globe. We had an interpreter, ANA troop with our convoy unit when we went to Shank... he used an original, milled reciever AK. The weapon had tens of thousands of rounds through it, no doubt and nearly all of the original coating was gone. The weapon shined in the light and the stocks had been replaced several times, he told us, but it worked without fault. The AKs main quality is simple... it works.
jcreek
New member
Accuracy factor isn't even kinda correct either. I hear all the time in the military how the rifle only holds 7 MOA and yet from a supported shooting position I can cut out a nice 4 inch hole at 200yds with an M-16 right out of the armory. And I can do better than that with anyone of my personal ARs.
B2Tall
Stirrer of the Pot
I also question the muzzle energy they have listed. The AK and its 7.62x39 round typically has nearly double the muzzle energy of the AR and its 5.56x45 cartridge. There's just no comparison between the two. The AR is the scalpel while the AK is the sledgehammer......and we all know sledgehammers are waaaaay more fun than scalpels!!
gunnerbob
PEW Professional
Yeah, ARs are capable of sub 4" groups at 200m... if the shooter is too. Like B2Tall said, the AR is a scalpel and the AK is a hammer.
jcreek
New member
I agree with you assessment as far as the rifles go but not you "fun" factor assessment. Completely depends on the person. I much prefer taking one of my ARs out and doing some long-range precision shooting to going to the range and just dumping ammo out of an AK. There's no skill involved in that.
B2Tall
Stirrer of the Pot
Obviously it's a matter of opinion. I love my AR and wouldn't consider a firearm collection complete without one. I too enjoy going out and drilling holes with my '15 although I don't have much opportunity to shoot more than 100yds. That being said I just prefer the crude destruction dealt from an AK....kinda like throwing bricks through windows :biggrin:
whodat2710
New member
Best argument I have ever hear on this matter revolves around the following:
Link Removed
There is actually a design feature on the AR platform included because the manufacturer knows the gun will probably jam on you at the most inopportune time.
Link Removed
There is actually a design feature on the AR platform included because the manufacturer knows the gun will probably jam on you at the most inopportune time.
gunnerbob
PEW Professional
Haha, I like that....
Obviously, the charging handle on weapons such as the AK serve as the "forward assist", that the AR has. An aspect that is often over-looked concerning the reliabilty of the AK is that its bolt/carrier/piston group is heavy... thus, it has so much more energy coming forward compared to the AR (which relies on a strong recoil spring). This heavy operating assembly is what gives the AK near unsurpassed reliability in the battery going home arena. Another design aspect of the two bolts is the manner of which they "lock up". The AK doesn't have any lugs to lock into, only a rotating bolt. This enables there to be less opportunity for gunk build up in fine spaces, like the precision AR. The locking lugs of the AR, IMO, aren't an advantage for a combat rifle. In an effort to maximize reliability and mass production... the AK suffers in the accuracy department. However, I submit here... the majority of fire fights happen within 300m, within the effective range and accuracy of both the AK and AR(M4). "The enemy of best is good enough", the AK is simply that... good enough. No more and no less, it does exactly what it was designed to do. The AK is a tool meant to be abused by illiterates, peasants and suffer abuse like no other. Mission accomplished.
Obviously, the charging handle on weapons such as the AK serve as the "forward assist", that the AR has. An aspect that is often over-looked concerning the reliabilty of the AK is that its bolt/carrier/piston group is heavy... thus, it has so much more energy coming forward compared to the AR (which relies on a strong recoil spring). This heavy operating assembly is what gives the AK near unsurpassed reliability in the battery going home arena. Another design aspect of the two bolts is the manner of which they "lock up". The AK doesn't have any lugs to lock into, only a rotating bolt. This enables there to be less opportunity for gunk build up in fine spaces, like the precision AR. The locking lugs of the AR, IMO, aren't an advantage for a combat rifle. In an effort to maximize reliability and mass production... the AK suffers in the accuracy department. However, I submit here... the majority of fire fights happen within 300m, within the effective range and accuracy of both the AK and AR(M4). "The enemy of best is good enough", the AK is simply that... good enough. No more and no less, it does exactly what it was designed to do. The AK is a tool meant to be abused by illiterates, peasants and suffer abuse like no other. Mission accomplished.
jcreek
New member
You and I will have to disagree on that. I've shot 240s, 249s, AKs, M4s, and M2s, and yes, in country watching a machine gun cut a mud hut full of insurgents in half is rather exhilarating, but stateside, when all you're shooting at is rusted out old tank hulls or paper, I'd prefer a scoped rifle any day of the week.
Ducatim900
New member
Not all AR-15's are .223 caliber. I built mine on the 6.8 SPC round and the hitting power is better than the AK. I also like a scoped model and was using it for hunting before NYS made it illegal.
Ducatim900
New member
Not all AR-15's are .223 caliber. I built mine on the 6.8 SPC round and the hitting power is better than the AK. I also like a scoped model and was using it for hunting before NYS made it illegal.
J
JSDinTexas
Guest
I have a wasr that I usually put rounds into a 1ft square steel target at 150 yds 4 out of 5 times - and this is a clanking, rattling, rough finish rifle that is a total counter to the US machined mindset offerings. I also have a Colt M4 with scope that reduces those hits to about 4" groups.
Both are fun to shoot, but the AK gets my vote for the better fun, and it just looks mean too. :biggrin:
Still, I have concluded that if I were to bug out - it has to be the M4 due to weight: not weight of the rifle, but of the # of rounds carried with it - the AK with 10 loaded mags is darn heavy after an hour or so of humping.
Interesting article Luke - Thanks.
Both are fun to shoot, but the AK gets my vote for the better fun, and it just looks mean too. :biggrin:
Still, I have concluded that if I were to bug out - it has to be the M4 due to weight: not weight of the rifle, but of the # of rounds carried with it - the AK with 10 loaded mags is darn heavy after an hour or so of humping.
Interesting article Luke - Thanks.
Warrior1256
New member
I agree. I have one of each and love them both. Both have strengths and weaknesnes.
