[cubbieman]

yup the AK is an evil gun, the only reason to have one is to throw alot of lead around, it can't hit a person in your hallway, but the AR is pure genious, and better for everything. you can't like both they are god and satan

why do people make rivalries between inanimate objects? especially when both are good products

[tommy]

the ak47 will outdo the ar15 anyday it can score a body shot (torso) and with a round that big if you geit with a ak47 round in the gut or anywhere's in the upper body your goin downi would say it all depends on where you live .i live in south louisiana and there won't be any long distant shots so the ak47 is a perfect gun for down here.like it was mentioned before the ar15 is a great target rifle i have one and that's what i use it for if anything would happen that my life would depend on the gun going bang i'm grabbing my ak's

[gun crazy 2008]

Quote:       Originally Posted by mistert

any suggestions on brands? for an AR?

buschmaster or a colt

[.280Rem]

Quote:       Originally Posted by riverider

I your going to do mostly target shooting and also want a good defence rifle I would go for the AR. Now if you want to be a gang banger and just blast a lot of lead around then the AK fits this slot.

Most AR platforms are going to be better quality. And you can modify them in a bunch of different ways. For accuracy, hands down the AR. For cheap, the AK. That said, I'm not a fan of either of them really.

[Taurus Fan]

Quote:       Originally Posted by ezearln

Either will give you reasonable accuracy within battle ranges, the AK47 has a history of greater reliability under adverse conditions, I'd say overall it's a personal preference of what you find more enjoyable to shoot , my personal preference is for neither, I'd rather have (if budget allowed) a good M1A1 or a garand but thats just MY preference. You'll generally have a ball with either of your choices.

YES!!!! The M1A1 is waaaaaaay better than either of the other choices mentioned.

[Wingwiper]

Quote:       Originally Posted by knightRider

i have one of each and i would go with the ak 47 <--- they fire any time easy to clean , the ar 15 takes a lot of moveing parts !

The AR takes a lot of moving parts???? Like what? the bolt?

For accuracy the AR is hands down better than the Ak, for having a filthy weapon and still be able to shoot? the Ak, but I don't own filthy weapons, so that itsn't a problem.

The M16A2 is a helluva of an improvement over the old M16A1 and the newer M16 is by far better than the AK47.

Once the Iraq war is over, 5.56mm ammo will be cheap and in abundance.

[Don357]

During the time I spent in the Army I learned to trust and respect my M-16, but did I like it? the answer is absolutely, without a moment of hesitation, NO!!!!!! Even though I qualified "expert" every session, I hated that 5.56x45 Mattel Toy. I prefer a larger caliber. Had the AR-10 been adopted, things would have been different, but there were flaws in Stoner's design that were even carried over to the AR-15/ M-16 that have since been worked out. The govt has even approved the new (to the military) 6.8 caliber for the AR platform. IMHO, the AK is by far the better and least expensive rifle in terms of weapon and ammo. If you're looking for a plinking/hunting/defense gun, go with the AK. The AK rifle itself can be had for about $500 less than an AR, and the 7.62x39 ammo for about $5 to $8 per box of 20 less than the 5.56x45. And as I'm sure you know, .223 can not be substituted for 5.56, or vis-versa. There is a dramatic difference in chamber pressures of the two rounds that has dangerous consequences.

[tommy]

i always thought that you can shoot both .223/5.56 in a gun chambered for 5.56 but you can't shoot 5.56 out of a gun chambered for .223.

Quote:       Originally Posted by Don357

During the time I spent in the Army I learned to trust and respect my M-16, but did I like it? the answer is absolutely, without a moment of hesitation, NO!!!!!! Even though I qualified "expert" every session, I hated that 5.56x45 Mattel Toy. I prefer a larger caliber. Had the AR-10 been adopted, things would have been different, but there were flaws in Stoner's design that were even carried over to the AR-15/ M-16 that have since been worked out. The govt has even approved the new (to the military) 6.8 caliber for the AR platform. IMHO, the AK is by far the better and least expensive rifle in terms of weapon and ammo. If you're looking for a plinking/hunting/defense gun, go with the AK. The AK rifle itself can be had for about $500 less than an AR, and the 7.62x39 ammo for about $5 to $8 per box of 20 less than the 5.56x45. And as I'm sure you know, .223 can not be substituted for 5.56, or vis-versa. There is a dramatic difference in chamber pressures of the two rounds that has dangerous consequences.

[Don357]

Quote:       Originally Posted by tommy

i always thought that you can shoot both .223/5.56 in a gun chambered for 5.56 but you can't shoot 5.56 out of a gun chambered for .223.

You can, but with the lower chamber pressure of the .223, there is a chance of the bolt not cycling properly. Especially after a few rounds for the bolt and chamber to build up some carbon.

[GlockMeister]

This is my advice, take it for what you will. Seeing as the future of our gun rights hang in the balance, I strongly urge and suggest you buy an AK-47 and then also buy just an AR-15 either stripped, bare bone or complete lower receiver. Figure anywhere from $400-$600 for a good and decent AK, more than likely somewhere in the middle, and anywhere from 99.99-(350 bucks,maybe a little on the highside) for either a stripped bare bone lower to a complete lower depending on what brand you go with.

Doing this will ensure you'll eventually have both down the road should they screw law abiding responsible registered gun owners...ALL MHO of course.

Quote:       Originally Posted by tommy

i always thought that you can shoot both .223/5.56 in a gun chambered for 5.56 but you can't shoot 5.56 out of a gun chambered for .223.

If the receiver is stamped 5.56, you can shoot both .223 and 5.56 ammunition. If the receiver is stamped .223, you can only shoot .223 ammunition...

[Burke]

Having both a Norinco MAK-90 and an DPMS A-15 and having shot crap loads of lead through them..I can tell you that the AR is very accurate and the AK is accurate up to a point.
The AK's "open site" set-up gives the shooter a great viewing spectrum. I do not particularly like the AR's factory site.(why I bought an AIMPOINT)
The AIMPOINT is insane...it has made my AR an absolute joy to shoot. Best thing I ever invested in. The AK requires a little setup and sighting to work well. The AR took about 10 rounds on the bench to dial it in...and that's sitting on top of my Z-rail.
The Z rail is great for handled AR's because it allows you to get a whole Light/laser/scope system on one removeable unit, get it sited and take it off and put it back on at you leisure...and the accuracy of the AIMPOINT stays true..
Great setup. IMO
AK FTW!
There is a passage in Col. David Hackworth's book "Steel my Soldiers' Heart" where he recalls unearthing a mud and rust encrusted AK-47 along with a VC corpse while clearing land for his firebase. He called his men over and proceded to pull the action back on the AK and let loose with the remaining rounds in the magazine...a strong showing of how venerable the AK really is. The survivability of the AK vs. the AR is a moot point.
I have shown these many times..but the thread is prime for another showing..

[tommy]

i agree with you 100%glockmiester thats why i try to buy every assault weapon i can man i hate euseing that word to describe the guns(assault weapon) but thats what they are labeled as but yes i try to get one with every extra dime i get.

[big shrek]

The thing I had to teach "City Boys" over & over in the Army was to reach up with their right index finger and CLOSE THE FAWKING PORT after firing the M-16 prior to moving from the firing position.

"Why" You might ask?? Because if you leave it open you get dirt in it. I don't care where you are standing, the dirt magically enters the open port and makes your life miserable. If you wanna hear an old Infantry Sgt. cuss someone up one side & down the other, let 'em catch someone with an open port during movement. Heck, just let me see some young dipstick at the range walkin around without closing the port...he'll think his ears got burned off with a flamethrower. Because even at the range you can drop your beloved...you can trip and get dirt everywhere, or some jackanape can peel out in the parking lot and send sand flying everywhere and if you ain't got that port closed...you will be cleaning the blasted thing for quite awhile. Most folks don't quite understand why old Army guys hate the M-16 & SAW...it's because they JAM if you get more than a few grains of sand/dirt in 'em and they're an utter female dog to break down & clean properly in the field. However...they're also exceptionally accurate...when working.

If you want long-distance accuracy under premium conditions, get an AR.
If you want to kill someone or multiple someones under 200 yards, go with an AK.

But for close range work, get a Krink, a Tec-9, or a Calico.

[.280Rem]

Quote:       Originally Posted by SilverRun

I hear this stuff all the time. When was the last time you threw a hand full of Kentucky mud into your rifle? We are not in a war crawling around in the mud. Even if the SHTF, most of us will be in urban areas or upland type forest. I somehow manage to hunt in these forest without filling my rifle full of mud or sand. Sorry if I sound snippy, but I always hear the AK lovers/AR bashers use this argument over and over. It (reliability) is the only "advantage" that can be found over the AR. I agree that if I were fighting a war in the desert or jungle, an AK may be my first choice. But thankfully, most of us are not in a war. The ones that are use what the DOD wants them to have. As I said in my first post on this thread I have both rifles and like both, but I am just tired of this mud in the rifle argument. I will step off the soap box now and make way for the AR bashers.

Agree 100%!

[Wingwiper]

Quote:      

big shrek;531405]The thing I had to teach "City Boys" over & over in the Army was to reach up with their right index finger and CLOSE THE FAWKING PORT after firing the M-16 prior to moving from the firing position.

On EVERY RANGE I have ever shot on, the PORT is LEFT OPEN, bolt to the rear, and weapon on SAFE.

Quote:      

"Why" You might ask?? Because if you leave it open you get dirt in it. I don't care where you are standing, the dirt magically enters the open port and makes your life miserable. If you wanna hear an old Infantry Sgt. cuss someone up one side & down the other, let 'em catch someone with an open port during movement. Heck, just let me see some young dipstick at the range walkin around without closing the port...he'll think his ears got burned off with a flamethrower. Because even at the range you can drop your beloved...you can trip and get dirt everywhere, or some jackanape can peel out in the parking lot and send sand flying everywhere and if you ain't got that port closed...you will be cleaning the blasted thing for quite awhile. Most folks don't quite understand why old Army guys hate the M-16 & SAW...it's because they JAM if you get more than a few grains of sand/dirt in 'em and they're an utter female dog to break down & clean properly in the field. However...they're also exceptionally accurate...when working.

I think you are referring to the OLD Original M16 and YES! it was very suseptable to jamming. I have fired the NEWER M16A1 and the M16A2 in all kinds of weather and conditions and I can NOT remmber a single jam that was the weapons fault. I shot in excess of over 20,000 rounds per year. I know guys that take lousy care of their M16s and they shoot fine. The AR has gone through a lot of modifications over the years and has gotten better, much much better.

AK47 has gotten popular because the available ammo in the battle zones, versus the 5.56. Alot of that is due to the fact that civilians shoot 5.56mm as much as the military.

I have fired the AK and hate it. I guess that is why the Russians lost in Afghanistan against the less as well armed Afghans.

Give me an M14 first and a M16 second

Quote:      

If you want long-distance accuracy under premium conditions, get an AR. If you want to kill someone or multiple someones under 200 yards, go with an AK. But for close range work, get a Krink, a Tec-9, or a Calico.

[tommy]

the reason people talk about the mud is mainly as a refernce to how much the rifle can get dirty and still fire.as for as livin in the city the ar will still jam if you don't clean it. i too have both and they both have their +/- but if i was to only be able to take one gun i would rather take an ak over an ar because the ak can go pretty much forever and a day without being oiled or cleaned but you can't go that long with an ar15.i would hate to try and fine oil or a cleaning kit if mine was lost or i ran out of oil them kits just don't pop up behind trees when your out in the woods or city for that matter. i live in the swamps of south louisiana and mud would be a problem i don't think i would ever get that much mud in my gun but hey people do drop things and they do trip so you never know. if i could i would take both in a shtf situation but i don't think i wanna be toteing two rifles but i would dure try. i would hate to leave any of my babies home alone for someone else to take .

now i forgot to mention i only clean my m4 bushmaster every three months no matter how many rounds i put through it or even shoot it and it has never jammed at all.so hey it could be a god thing or not. when we shoot we go through about 5 30 round mags and maybe one more .it's a good gun but like i posted they have both +/-'s in their design.

[Comeandtakethem]

There is a point that no one has brought up yet... Ability to transport ammo. 7.62 is HEAVY! in a SHTF situation... I personally would rather be able to have more ammo available. 7.62 is a great man stopper, but 5.56 also does a great job. I know someone will want to say that 5.56 over penetrates and doesn't have the ability to put someone on the ground, but keep in mind that the military uses FMJ, and the JHP will transfer much more energy into targets and superficial through and through shots being experienced by the military would be far less common.

[BarryHalls]

WOW, talk about resurrection! In any event, the AK comes in 5.45x39 AND 5.56x45 too. Those models are a little harder to find, but they aren't any more expensive.

Both rifles come in a pretty wide range of chamberings, though I daresay the AR's range of chamberings is much wider.

So, these discussions always focus on the rifles and actions, not the rounds.

In the end, it's the druthers of the owner, but I tend to believe that at almost any given price range, the AK is the better OVERALL rifle, BUT if price is no object, then there are some $2-3k piston driven ARs with incredible features and capabilities.

Still, most of us wanted EITHER an AK or an AR for a given set of reasons and found the best one in our price range.

[srt 10 jimbo]

I have Both, The AR Is more accurate the AK is more Durable and more fun to shoot.

[big shrek]

Quote:       Originally Posted by Wingwiper

On EVERY RANGE I have ever shot on, the PORT is LEFT OPEN, bolt to the rear, and weapon on SAFE. I think you are referring to the OLD Original M16 and YES! it was very suseptable to jamming. I have fired the NEWER M16A1 and the M16A2 in all kinds of weather and conditions and I can NOT remmber a single jam that was the weapons fault. I shot in excess of over 20,000 rounds per year. I know guys that take lousy care of their M16s and they shoot fine. The AR has gone through a lot of modifications over the years and has gotten better, much much better. Give me an M14 first and a M16 second

A1's and then A2's were what we used in the late 80's/ early 90's...Florida sand is NASTY stuff. Georgia dirt (Benning) is somewhat easier to clean out.
Both the A1 & A2 would jam quite quickly from Northwest Florida's white sugar sand.
Especially when firing on the move...when you push off the ground, if that port ain't closed, in the sand goes.

You either learned to close that port after you shot, before you moved or gave time to let the wind to blow sand into the receiver,
or you had jamming problems. Having lived in Florida most of my life, I already knew about sand issues...
and I always closed my port the second I took my finger off the trigger. Those who didn't...spent a lot of time cleaning
their rifles every night in their sleeping bags. For those who've never done that in the dark in a bag...its a PAIN.

Its also where I developed my 2-quart canteen bag ammo carrier for the M60E3...otherwise it would get jammed with sand...
take a 2-qt canteen holder, put the canteen part back in your ruck, and take a cardboard ammo box &
unfold it, then use it to line the inside of the bag, then feed in 5 linked belts of ammo...then close the top.
When preparing to fire, you'd set up and flip the top of the canteen cover off for easy & sand-free feeding.
If you are wondering why we didn't have the Box for the M60 ammo, it was because MSgt Nieves believed in the bare minimums
when out in the field...he also liked to see what sort of lightweight field-expedient ideas we could come up with to assist us while on FTX.

All that white sand training around Camp Rudder probably made things a lot easier for those who went to Iraq.
Once you get used to dealing with it getting into everything, you make plans on how to deal with it.
Those who didn't plan for the sand...suffered. Just the issue of it getting into yer shorts was bad enough...but in a rifle? Urgh.