AK vs AR

[aubie515]

Sorry you feel that way, i wasnt hear for the debates before.
Drak

I'm kidding pal...you take things way too seriously on the net...it's the internet man. You should know by now that I joke around a lot. I hope I don't have to LOL or say I'm kidding everytime I post. Or else I might be apologizing a lot. lol

[DrakinClaw]

I'm kidding pal...you take things way too seriously on the net...it's the internet man. You should know by now that I joke around a lot. I hope I don't have to LOL or say I'm kidding everytime I post. Or else I might be apologizing a lot. lol

haha nah its not like that man, no worries, Im still a noob at this whole firearm thing so im just not really up to date with my knowledge I live and I learn. I'm just trying to start new threads and i didnt know this subject was beaten to death, but now i do
Drak

[DPB]

It causes me pain to post on this topic, but there are a few misconceptions that I would like to clear up. You can believe me or not.

Neither one is a "machine gun" to anyone but the ATF. A true machine gun fires a full power rifle cartridge (7.62 NATO, 8mm, 30-06, 7.62x54R), from a belt, and usually from an open bolt, and is designed to provide sustained fire.

At most, both were designed as automatic rifles, but the AK more so than the AR. Soviet doctrine was for dismounted Infantry to advance on line, firing their AKs on full auto, from the hip. That's why on a FA AK, the first position after "Safe" is "Auto" and not "Semi." The AR was designed primarily for semi fire, but there was an early heavy version that was designed to fill the roll currently filled by the M249, which is generally termed as the automatic rifle role.

Neither is really controllable for any more than short bursts from the shoulder. Also, the ammo supply is limited (mag, not belt), and they fire from the closed bolt, so auto fire from either is really more of a novelty than a good tactical tool in most circumstances. On the other hand, an M60 is also not controllable when fired from the shoulder, standing. Ask me how I know.

AKs malfunction, just like ARs. They do so less frequently, and require less cleaning, because they were designed to be run and maintained by elementary schoo drop out conscript soldiers. The designe is such that tolerances can be loose, and when it cycles, the action slams the snot out of itself, which leads to reliability when dirty. The AR is (usually) a much more well tooled item, but it was still made so a US public high school graduate (I are one) could keep it running. It takes more work to keep an AR running, but there is a reason Soldiers and Marines are taught to clean their weapons, besides the fact that clean weapons are an indicator of discipline.

For those who say 5.56 lacks power, allow me to tell you a story. Long range marksmanship, Kuwaiti desert, summer of 200, 140 degrees in the shade (there I was). Iron maidens (steel targets) at 500-600 meters. 7.62 NATO, M118 Special Ball sniper ammo, hits, doesn't leave a mark. M855 5.56 ball ammo, out of a 14.5 inch barrel, goes through 1/2-5/8ths inch of rolled steel like a hot knife through butter. No kidding.

I like and own both, but I own one AK and, well, more than one AR. There are very few circumstances where I prefer the AK, and most involve the 75 round drum.

doug

[JayBell]

Neither is really controllable for any more than short bursts from the shoulder.

wish I could post my vids of me shooting my Colt full auto, not burst, m16 in controlled 100rd beta mag dumps.
Completely controllable, even from an 11.5" barrel:-)

you can saw the roof off a car with that thing:-)

as is the AK, but, for best control, bursts are obviously better.

shot my dealer buddys AKs, one an AMD65, that was VERY controllable, and the 5.45 standard style AK74, very controllable, even in full mag dumps.

its all a matter of familiarity and practice.

also, being 6'4" and 265lbs helps to doak up the recoil:-)

[DPB]

"its all a matter of familiarity and practice."

I have a fair amount of familiarity and practice with automatic weapons.

JayBell, I'm not disputing anything you're saying, but I'm pretty sure you and I are speaking from different contexts. I have no doubt that you can control a beta mag dump into a target at 10, 25, or possibly even 50 yards, and your absolutely correct, with practice you can do that. However, that's not what I mean by controllable. Being able to accurately dump a mag on full auto into a target is not the same as providing effective, controlled supression and fire support at extended distances (400-1200 meters), which is a primary function of a true machine gun. It's also not the same as addressing multiple targets at closer ranges quickly, which is almost always more effective and efficient with semi automatic fire. Full auto fire is also not sufficiently controllable in situations where any rounds that do not find their intended target become legal or tactical liabilities, or when you are shooting close to friendlies.

I'm curious, when you're doing mag dumps, have you ever had an issue with cook offs? I've heard of rounds cooking of in ARs/M16, but I've never seen it. Including the time I shot an M16A2 until it was so hot that the selector lever was seizing.

It's funny you mentioned the "burst" option. This was one of the worst things ever inflicted upon Soldiers and Marines. It was put in the A2 to keep troops from wasting ammo on full auto, because proper training is apparently just too hard. Due to the construction of the trigger group, it has three different semi auto trigger pulls. Targets shot on burst usually show two shots close together and on wide flyer. And you don't have the full auto option for the few tactical situations where it is appropriate. There is a very good reason that when we got the M4, SOF got the M4A1 with the full auto (not burst) trigger group.

One more thing. I would like to publicly state that I am very jealous of the fact that JayBell has a registered Colt and I don't.

doug

[DrakinClaw]

its simple. If you were compaire and Ar to ak in work tools.
A AR would be a hammer, can be used to pound a wide variety of nails, but it is mainly used for precise hits to drive a nail home.
A AK is more of a sledge hammer, Less accurate, can be used for a wide variety of blunt objects, but its mainly used for its hard punch and heavy destructive force.


Drak

[Spectre6]

its simple. If you were compaire and Ar to ak in work tools.
A AR would be a hammer, can be used to pound a wide variety of nails, but it is mainly used for precise hits to drive a nail home.
A AK is more of a sledge hammer, Less accurate, can be used for a wide variety of blunt objects, but its mainly used for its hard punch and heavy destructive force.


Drak

I would say that analogy is close... let me try and refine it.

An AR would be a nailgun. Works great, makes life easy, costs a bit more.

An AK would be a hammer. Not as slick as the nailgun, but gets the job done, and cheap. You have to work really hard to f*ck up your hammer. Leave it in a muddy puddle for days, pick it up, and it still works.

You can build a house with both. Just depends on how you want to do it.

[jdlv4_0]

I'll stickl to the AR platform, just not in 5.56, give me 6.8 or .308.

IMHO while the AK is a fantastic combat platform, the AR gives more accuracy and is easier to accomodate optics and other accessories.

[Thekatar]

More stupid stuff has been said about these two weapons on the internet than anything else I can think of.

They both work well as fighting carbines. The AK benefits greatly from a few select aftermarket accessories. The AK is more accurate than you have been led to believe, and the AR is more reliable than you have been led to believe.

[DPB]

You guys are killing me.

"It is an assault weapon meant for house to house fighting" No, it was designed for massed Infantry assaults across Europe after the Infantrymen dismounted from their armored carriers for the final assault on NATO positions. It was designed at a time when armies generally avoided cities. With the exception of Stalingrad, very little WW2 combat occurred in cities. The reason the AK works better than most firearms in bad conditions is that it was designed to be issued to illiterate conscripts who were percieved as incapable of learning weapons maintenance.

"The AR was also designed ( and modified ) to answer a war problem. The idea being that our warfighters could carry twice to three times the amount of ammo to engage the enemy in the field, also to keep the enemies heads down as we manuvered to flank their positions...that is when we engaged an enemy who would stand and fight ( Vietnam )." Also incorrect. The AR was adopted as a result of going to war in the jungle with a weapon that was optimized for combat on the European battlefield (anyone seeing a trend here), where engagement ranges would be much longer. Suppressive fire was not a new ieda in Vietnam. Someone figured out that carrying a weapon that was designed for combat out to 800 meters or so, and was, relative to it's replacement, a beast to carry, was not the answer for a war where engagement distances were typically inside 100m. Eugene Stoner (having been a United States Marine) assumed that the American servicemember was capable of conducting weapons maintenance. The early problems came from DoD using powder that created substantially more fouling than the correct powder. You can run an awful lot of rounds through a properly built and lubed AR before it chokes due to fouling.

Yes, everyone spent a lot of time and money preparing for the war in Europe. The one that, fortunately, didn't happen.

None of these rounds were "designed to wound." The initial (1:14 inch twist) M16s produced devastating wounds in flesh but didn't penetrate for crap against any barrier. The changes in twist rate and bullet construction were made in an attemt to better attempt to defeat the percieved threat. Generally this meant changing something to improve penetration against barriers or body armor. Whether this was necessarily progress is debatable.

I know people who would die of shock if you suggested to them that any .30 caliber bullet was designed to wound. One of the driving forces behind the M43 7.62x39 round was cheap production, hence the use of steel cases and steel jacketed, copper washed bullets. No, Wolf Ammunition didn't develop those things for export to the US, they allowed the aforementioned illiterate conscripts to be supplied with ammo for the minimum rubles. Remember, the Soviet Army frequently couldn't afford to feed it's soldiers or issue them socks, so working on the cheap was critical.

Regarding non-standard calibers: Both the 6.8 and 7.62 NATO are ballistically superior to 5.56 NATO. However:

For 6.8, parts, mags, and ammunition are never going to be common or cheap, because, despite what you've read in the magazines, no one in DoD is buying it. Yes, the terminal ballistics are excellent. The sales pitch to DoD and USASOC was not, which is a story I don't want to get into here.

Regarding 7.62, the parts and mags issue is similar to 6.8. Obviously, ammo is not an issue, but every 7.62 AR I've seen is a beast compared to a 5.56 model. Which will become an issue after you've carried it for about 15 mintutes. I have one and have shot several, and while most 7.62 ARs are truly excellent platforms, they are not generally suited for the same uses as 5.56 ARs.

The hammer analogies are making me want to cry.