AK or AR?

**pitt45GAP** · September 13th, 2012, 10:54 PM

Originally Posted by EvoRich

You're correct. An AR is not a "true" DI gun, however, the more typical piston guns still don't shoot hot, dirty gasses into the feeding area which is why AR's typically need to be kept lubed a cleaned as opposed to conventional pistol guns that won't get NEARLY as dirty in the same places an AR will.

A little overstated, but yes, the bolt will get dirtier in an AR...

But we are imagining an impossible scenario... Typical Soldier load out is well under 600 rounds... and they typically come back with a majority of their ammo.

Wars are not 24/7 non stop action for the soldiers, there are times to clean your weapons... I would rather have an accurate weapon vs one that keeps its bolt cleaner.

If AK's were the best weapon, I highly doubt we would still be using the AR after 50 years of service. It has proven itself battle superior.

**EvoRich** · September 13th, 2012, 10:58 PM

Originally Posted by pitt45GAP

A little overstated, but yes, the bolt will get dirtier in an AR...

But we are imagining an impossible scenario... Typical Soldier load out is well under 600 rounds... and they typically come back with a majority of their ammo.

Wars are not 24/7 non stop action for the soldiers, there are times to clean your weapons... I would rather have an accurate weapon vs one that keeps its bolt cleaner.

If AK's were the best weapon, I highly doubt we would still be using the AR after 50 years of service. It has proven itself battle superior.

Hey, he said 20,000 rounds, and that's what I was going by

at 20,000 rounds with NO maintenance, the AR's feeding area will be MUCH dirtier compared to an AK. 600 rounds... either rifle will go 600 rounds easily with no maintenance.

No way would I go that many with EITHER the AK or Ar without maintaining it.

**pitt45GAP** · September 13th, 2012, 10:59 PM

I think it would be different. AKM does not have requirements for minimum MOA...

An average basically trained US soldier with a rifle that misses or misses vital organs and allows the less trained using a 2 MOA rifle, might lose the battle, but they will take alot more bodies with them than when they were carry AKs...

Why is the AK the weapon of choice of these nations? CHEAP... they cost less than $200 to produce. What do wealthy nations use? not the AK... It just doesn't have the accuracy...

In the end I think we can look at a few other examples of AKM's failing... Many of its users have been brained by the bolt when its sheetmetal rails broke. The LA bank Robbers AKM jammed and he had to shoot himself as he was out of the game...

The AK's reliability is overstated, and the AR's is understated....

**pitt45GAP** · September 13th, 2012, 11:03 PM

Originally Posted by EvoRich

Because it's been around longer, has seen more wars and are used by more countries. It doesn't mean it's better at killing. I don't think the point of his statement was to compare it to the AK, but more or less stating it's abilities to operate in a variety of environments.

Unless you're you're going to take down the extractor (The AK also needs a tool to take down the bolt itself), you don't even need a bullet to field strip an AR. I can get the cotter pin with my finger nail, and I don't have longer finger nails.

Darn I really need to stop biting my nails... Actually tonight I used a pen to push the cotter pin out.... Its not hard to field strip at all.. I can do it blind folded and I didn't spend a day in the military...

**EvoRich** · September 13th, 2012, 11:04 PM

Originally Posted by pitt45GAP

The AK's reliability is overstated, and the AR's is understated....

Originally Posted by EvoRich

AR's are way more reliable than the internet says they are. AK's aren't as durable as the internet says they are.

The same goes for accuracy. While AR's have the edge in accuracy and AK's might have the edge in reliability, the internet blows this insanely out of proportion.

**pitt45GAP** · September 13th, 2012, 11:09 PM

Real world Accuracy

100 Yard Averages
AKM 5.9" Groups
M4 2.58" Groups

I don't think nearly 3.5 MOA is just a slight difference.

**em2b96p** · September 13th, 2012, 11:16 PM

AK all day! The piston system is more robust than the DI system of the AR.

**dandito** · September 13th, 2012, 11:17 PM

I see myself as biased as I am currently still serving in the military, but I would go with the AR for a few reasons.

1. If you live in the US, parts are more common.
2. If you live in the US, ammo is more common.
3. If you have ever served in the military or in LE it is the platform more familiar to you.

If the first two aren't reason enough, and you haven't served, after 20,000 rounds I would still choose the AR, in the US. If abroad and in a foreign country where the first two might not be true, I would choose the AK.

**pitt45GAP** · September 13th, 2012, 11:19 PM

More robust?

I just looked up the specs for the AKM

AK-47 service life 6K - 15K rounds... It wouldn't make it through this gentlemans hypothetical 20K rounds in 30 day war.

M4 has a barrel life of 20 - 50K rounds...

So you may need 2-3 AKM's for ever 1 M4...

**TonyF** · September 14th, 2012, 12:33 AM

Originally Posted by TB215

OK! I'll be more specific! If SHTF and I had to use my rifle for 30 days straight without cleaning which one can I depend on?

I know you're just trying to ascertain which platform is more durable or robust but the reality is that either rifle would be susceptible to failure at that rate without maintenance.

There is no realistic scenario involving a civilian given Pennsylvania's rather moderate climate and "non-sandy" environment whereby one or the other platform would provide an advantage over the other or fail before the other.

It's a six to five and pick 'em situation. It really is.