Vote: AR vs AK

[George Hill]

I want to see the temperment of TFL.
Simple poll... AR or AK. If you could as well... Why?

[George Hill]

3 to 1 in favor of the AK... TFL really is smarter than the average bear.

[MakeMyDay]

Gee...I guess that would depend on the application!
I if am wanting to place shots precisely up to 500 yds...
and have a half decent weapon to use in a TSHTF situation...and have a great varmint rifle...
and use it in high power matches...
and be able to utilize its modular design and change its configuration if I so desire...THEN I VOTE AR-15 all the way!
On the other hand, if I want to have a well proven battle SAW and dont't really care about it's accuracy that much...
and I get in the mood to abuse the crap out of it and simply use it to SPRAY bullets...Then AK would do.
I am more interested in application #1...so in my case AR-15 is what I'll chose!

[Brian Newbill]

AK

Shoots cleaner, easier to take apart, harder to break, fewer moving parts, shoots a bigger cartridge.

And best of all. Anti-gunners hate them!!

[Mithirium]

AR because I own one and they have a better Infrastructure for support, parts availability, and interchangeability.

I will humor you with the fact that if they were handing out weapons for a last stand in some yucky, dirty, craphole type-o place I would choose an AK

[Art Eatman]

This reminds me of the old joke about the coed and the highway cop: "Oh, no! Not another breathalyzer test!"

, Art

[dZ]

strong like bull
smart like rock

[Jake 98c/11b]

Only for you George.

AR pattern is more ergonomic, versatile, accurate, modular and is better supported. If it hasn't been built or modified by some ill trained chimp it is reliable.

Gee, I wonder why YOURS never worked right

Honestly, I have owned both and I will go with the AR everytime. Not once have I had (in 14 years) an issue weapon (AR type) fail. If you have one that isn't quite right send it to someone who knows what they are doing (admittedly there are few).

I will admit to being stubborn and opinionated, but you knew that didn't you...

[ronin308]

I've owned 4 ARs and 1 AK. Only 1 AR didn't work flawlessly. The AK has a flawless track record. If I could pick one though it would be the AR. I love the ergonomics on it. I like the sights way better too. The only thing about the AR is the reliability is sometimes inconsistent. Like it says in Boston's Gun Bible, the AR "S**ts where it eats." I'll be getting my next AR (to replace the ones I've stupidly traded) for Christmas this year

Dan

[Scarborough]

Used to the AR series. S/N 3372672 never did me wrong.

[Fred Hansen]

Alaska. Arkansas sucks!

[Bob Locke]

jmbg29 takes the prize! LOL!

As to me, I have an AR but not an AK (got an SKS instead). I prefer the AR.

[Correia]

I'll take my Vepr K over my Bushmaster any day of the week. The Bushy will shoot tighter groups. But that is it.

It also tends to malfunction once in a while, the magazines are feeble and easily bent, it is a pain to clean, and I would be scared to death to try and field strip it outdoors and loose that stupid little roll pin. A tiny piece of crud can work its way under the spring loaded ejector and jam the crap out of it (trust me, I've done this with a 1/16th of an inch brass shaving) requiring you to compleatly break down the bolt using a punch. As nice and light and handy as the Bushmaster is, it doesn't pass the reliability test nearly enough for me to stake my life on it. The forward assist is a sick joke. In certain malfunctions, the bolt carrier will be in such a position that the forward assist will not connect, but the length of the bolt carrier is such that it is extending into the buffer tube in the stock. When this happens you cannot clear the gun, or break it open. You usually have to hit the but stock on the ground until the carrier kicks free. The cocking handle is absurd. Stoner was on the right track with his original AR10 under the sight rail cocking handle, not the "drawing a bowstring" abomination.

On the plus side the Bushmaster does have nicer sights, and it shoots better groups. It is lighter. Uhh... It looks cool. And Ilike haveing a trap door in the butstock. But other than that... Maybe I'll think of some other pluses later.

The Vepr is uber reliable, and has so far proven to be more accurate than I can probably take advantage of with iron sights and my own feeble shooting skills.

On the downside of the AK, I miss my thumb safety. And there is no last shot bolt hold open. I also prefer peep sights to buckhorns. But I would still take the AK over the AR any day.

There should have been another option though. FAL. Best of both worlds.

[johnAK]

when you were in the service, officers who were enlisted man before are more popular to emlisted man than officers straight out of college,( old NCO too for that matter)
I like AK 'cause it's designed by the soldier who fought the war and self-taught the designing weapon, thus he knew what I need(even thou I don't need that yet)

[krept]

Interesting...

I wonder how this poll would turn out if the majority of those responding lived in countries where the militaries used the Kalashnikov.

I voted AK. After 100 yards, gimme the M14. Under the hundred yards, gimme the AK.

[George Hill]

The AK has pulled into the lead again - by a good margin.
I was getting worried over here.
Krept makes a good point - if the US Army was issuing AKs, I think that a great many people would be casting AK votes instead of AR votes. They would stop making excuses for the AR's crappy reliability and fragility. My favorite is the guy with a two month old Bushmaster with only 200 rounds through it "Oh Yeah, MINE IS GREAT! I have not had a jam yet so I am saying AR ALL THE WAY!"

[Keith J]

Or shoot, even 300! I will be laughing my a$$ off seeing you spray bullets all over the frame while I effortlessly slip all 10 into nothing less than the 7 ring. Bet I have at least 5 X's. I'll even limit myself to magazine-length ammunition too. You can feed anything in your AK that functions, it will not help.

I suspect the reason for popularity of the AK has little to do with actual reliability and more to do with price differences and "sour grapes" resulting from the greater expense of the AR. That is to say at least a quality AR and not some gunshow Tapco upper kit with a poorly machined lower and magazines formerly DX'ed by the local National Guard unit after bayonet training damage.

As the rifle is issued to our troops, with quality M193 ammo, all of the samples I have shot both under glass and with the service sights grouped under 1.5 inches for a 5 shot group at 100 yards. Some were quite impressive, shooting under 3/4" at that range.

My SR special has only trigger and free-float work done to a stock FN barrel and will shoot match ammo under 1 MOA at 600 yards. It gets cleaned every 500 rounds and simply does not jam. Ever.

Attend a service rifle match sometime. No, they won't let you use your AK's but they might loan you a good rifle, possibly even a great rifle like a CLE AR.

The AK's are a fine substitute for bumble bee rounds when you have 300 jihadi's and no arty support.

[George Hill]

Funny how most gunfights - even Military ones - have ranges under 50 yards.
You can be out there looking for me at 600 Yards through the sights of your AR. No Problem. In the mean time I have been sneaking up on you and am now about to give you a burst of 7.62X39 from inside 50 yards.


Hmmm... I seem to remember firing an SAR-3 (Was it a 3? It was chambered for the AK-74 round) at a rock that was at a MEASURED 600 METERS. I'd put the dot on the rock - pull the trigger - and see that bullet smack right into that rock. I aint worried about accuracy.

[Correia]

Argue gun, not cartridge. If arguing cartridges how about a 5.45 AK vs. a 5.56 AR. The 600 yard argument is a moot point. The 7.62x39 still does fine out to 300 yards.

(Still, I'll take my 7.62 Nato, 800+ yards, and it don't matter if you hide behind most things. )

[MiniZ]

I like the AK for the utter reliability. Either 7.62X39 or 5.45X39 through these guns will give you "tactical" accuracy.

When I want precision, or to shoot over 300 yards, I would grab the 7.62 NATO anyway.

[Keith J]

Under 50 yards? Be careful of statistics here George. Most enemy movements are recognized at much longer distances and it isn't until the enemy is within the 150-50 meter distance that they can be engaged by the average soldier. Movement under fire tends to make poor targets.

In ODS, typical enemy recognition for unmounted troops was over 700 meters. Of course the majority I saw were under surrender flags and glassing them revealed a non-threatning posture. Those that appeared armed and w/o signs of surrender were fired upon, whereby the survivors discarded their arms.

The few KIA's I witnessed were taken at ranges of over 200 meters with M16's.

Viet Nam had a much different arm requirement. This was before my time but I served with vets and heard the stories. For the QCB, most prefered the shotgun.

[Shin-Tao]

AK series.

It's designed for field conditions, not shooting ranges.

[Keith J]

LMAO. Why is it the mousegun has stolen all thunder from the Service Rifle matches? Read Feamster. Or Zediker.

FYI, the mouse is even taking over the 1000. USAMU switched in 1994. Get on the bandwagon.

[bastiat]

AK, but I prefer mine in 5.45 just to be different.

Will the winner go on to take on the FAL in a 'fight to the death' poll????

[George Hill]

Well, I wasn't in ODS... but during OJC the typical range was more like 25.