Discussion in 'Firearms and Hunting' started by modernpaladin, Mar 11, 2019.
Overdramatized for humor, but generally accurate.
AR totally modular and easy to reconfigure and change calibers at will with uppers and magazines.
AK, not so much......
AR, barrel replacement is easy,
AK, not easy.
That's true... but how is that really more versatile? Under what conditions is carrying a spare upper, barrel and two different types of mags all that much more beneficial than simply carrying two rifles? We're talking about a difference of a couple pounds, right?
I could carry an AK rifle and another AK pistol and achieve the same result with slightly more weight and a lot less 'switch' time (though the exact same is true for the AR as well).
If for whatever reasons, I wanted swap barrels, lets say to optimise a particular bullet weight, and wanted a different barrel, an AR has more options, without major work.
It is much harder to change barrels on an AK.... and there are not as many options as far as stabilizing different bullet weights as with an AR.
You can opt to shoot heavier or lighter bullets in an AR based on rifling twist.
If I want to try .300 blackout, I do not have to get another gun, the same AR can be easily configured to shoot that caliber.
I am a pragmatic sort. My gun collection (and knife collection for that matter) is, (aside from those of historic interest) based on fit to task. When I hunted for subsistence and money, I had a large battery of guns, each acquired for different roles, each with different optics, trigger groups and each individually customized to fit me. It required a lot of storage space, tied up a lot of money, and carried with it other cons associated with a large collection. With an AR platform, I found I could customize a single lower to fit my exact fit, and simply swap uppers (different optics, cartridge options, BCGs, barrel twists, lengths, etc.) to fill particular tasks (also quickly drop in different trigger groups for different preferences) and carry more than one upper on a hunting trip in one case. An added advantage is high predictability in trouble shooting and rapid resolution of any mechanical failure. Over time, that convenance allowed my to liquidate much of my collection and reduce my storage requirements (helped finance a house). The few uppers I now have, cover nearly any hunting (or Tactical) requirement I might have, from small fragil game to large mammals, short range to long range, available ammo, etc. It’s reality’s answer to that Hollywood magic do anything rifle/carbine.
I have an AK, but other than a few custom mods and range work, I have never used it for hunting. It’s role, for me, is one I never hope to have need for, a SHTF scenario where a low maintenance, mud level reliability weapon would be an advantage (along with a glock for that role).
These days, I have a small long gun collection. I have found nothing comparable for versatility in the knives or handgun category.
That works for me for now, others may have their druthers/logic. Always open to other’s suggestions on Magic guns/cartridges.
So your argument for the AR is you can do more with less guns (just more parts).
Though I dunno if needing more guns is really a drawback
I've spent time with both the AK and the AR, and came to realize that both weapon systems have their merits. I've used both, trained extensively with both, and am comfortable with both. You just have to understand that you can't run an AR like an AK, or an AK like an AR; you have to run them as they are at their best.
The modularity of the AR is certainly a benefit, and its ergonomics are second to none. The AK is tank tough and simple to keep running in even the worst conditions.
When talking to people who prefer one system over another, the AR people will tend to most often denigrate the AK's accuracy, while the AK people will tend to most often denigrate the AR's reliability. Well, I've shot reliable AR's and I've shot accurate AK's, and as one of my instructors once sagely put it: "The AR is more reliable than people give it credit for... and the AK is more accurate than people give it credit for."
I tend to think in term of roles and tools to fit those roles. I don’t use a hammer to cut wood or for screws, I use the tools best adapted those roles. But, with guns, I also tend to see them more as platforms with replaceable parts that can be customized to extend or improve their characteristics, usefulness, and adaptability to expand their role envelope within practical, cost effective, balance-trade off limits.
When I was a teen, I had an old inherited 50’s bolt action J.C. Higgins .22 with open sights and slightly off front post that never got fixed. I put that gun though unimaginable crap, knew exactly and reflexively how to hold for any shot out to a hundred yards for stationary targets, running targets out to 50 yards
, and even flying targets out to 35 with the shorts, longs and LR ammo of the brands I could get. It wasn’t pretty, but it put more food in the pot than all my other guns combined. I once heard someone say, beware of the man with one gun. It was a good quote...however, another mentor also said, be aware of your limitations and either learn well to use the tools you have or acquire the tools you don’t have to fill your needs...and learn how to use them well.
I spent years buying different guns as diverse as Marlin bolt action goose guns,
Bolt action rifles, handguns,
And learning how to repair them.
Some jobs I farmed out, S&W revolver barrels since I was not set up to change them vs Dan Wesson barrel changes.
I have had AK type rifles, and I like them,
I have built AR type rifles and I always enjoyed the simplicity and ease of building them.
The tools required to build an M-16 or
AR rifle are far less costly or massive.
For example, to rebarrel a Mauser rifle I would set up a hydraulic press, and clamp down the barrel and use a receiver wrench of my own design, four feet long to remove the barrel with a loud shriek.
Not an easy job.
A barrel change on a Ruger 10-22, is a cinch,
Savage with it's barrel nut is simpler than most other rifles.
I will always appreciate the M and AR platforms for versatility and ease of work.
All Arms obviously have a place, some are more versatile.
Amazingly enough, I shot a rifle purposely built from a Ruger M-77 action in
6.5-06, and it was a very light handy rifle, yet extreme accuracy, I shot it out to
300 meters and had a very small group.
120 grain hollow point round @ over 3000 fps, and in a wind at an odd target, a letter sized envelope on a branch with a circle made with a sharpie, I lay prone, no rest just my arm, Tennessee, hot, and the scope sight was a swirl.
I still shot well, what a rifle !
I like both! Do i have to choose just one? I tend to shoot the ARs more, but thats just an ammo preference.. reloading, price, etc. But the ak platform is a proven winner, and i see no reason to demean it in general. Of course, i like revolvers, too, so old school weaponry is an interest.
There are those gems, those that I still kick myself for letting go. But, I am never completely satisfied, there is always....
In the US, spare AR parts are as close as the nearest cop car. So there’s that.
Is that your source? Lol
I like to build AR rifles, high quality parts are readily available from sources like Brownell's and other suppliers.
I build them too. My comment was young in cheek.
If you live in Texas and 90% of Texans drive ford trucks, you should have a ford truck too. That way when the zombies come you have a plethora of spare parts to choose from.
+ for a ford truck ... I have one but am not in TX. The AR, perhaps the AK, for the PU world with room for hauling SHTF stuff. Keep my DSHK in the back for critter hunting.
The AR is amazingly accurate, at the range a few days ago I was hitting 8" plates about a third of the time at 220 yards with open sights, not bad for my 60 year old eyes. Bottom rifle in photo, A1 configuration.
I'm an AK guy. I don't personally own any AR's and I'll probably never buy one. I think my bias stems from my terrible experiences with M4s in the Army. I loathe that thing. Being deployed in an obscure environment with a firearm that requires more pampering than a spoiled Diva was annoying. The damn thing could almost never go through a full magazine without jamming. Forget about 3 round burst, even a completely clean M4 couldn't do that consistently. I'm sure that a quality built civilian AR is probably better than the beaten down Colt M4's we use in the Army. But even when I use my buddy's AR's at the range the second I pick it up I get flashbacks from the multiple times I've had to use a gerber to dig out rounds that were jammed in that piece of crap M4 I'm issued at work lol.
Even my cheap WASR AK is tough as a tank. I could go out back and bury that thing in the yard and dig it up next year and fire 30 rounds through it without an issue.
Much of the problems with the AR can be remedied with durable mags and most of the rest avoided by getting a piston driven AR. But you're still left with an aluminum rifle that may not survive being used as a club or a shovel.
I trained pretty heavy with the M4 platform when I was in the Border Patrol. So long as you ran it "wet" it ran fine. When I picked up my own I bought a high-end one (BCM), which was absolutely 100% reliable, even dirty. I like the modularity and ergonomics of it.
That said, I did pick up a Bulgarian receiver build of an AK, and it is without a doubt the most dirt-reliable firearm I've ever owned. When you train to run it like an AK (not run it like an AR like some neophytes try to do) I feel you're not giving up a darn thing. The AR is more intrinsically accurate, but my AK will still shoot pretty darn close to MOA if I use quality ammo in it. Even with steel-cased Wolf ammo it'll do 1.5 MOA.
If I had to grab only one rifle I'd be torn between my AK and my Robinson Armament XCR.
When I was out in the bush, working in Meso America back in the late 70’s through the mid 80’s, Afew of us carried AKs (obtained via the military black market ... complete with permits). They were dragged through the worst crap you can imagine, dropped in mud, constantly getting saturated, impossible to keep pristine clean... yet I never worried they wouldn’t function. Great for that application. But, One of the platforms I know own is an AR lower with three uppers (two of the Anderson’s with Anderson BCM’s) in different chamberings, and fit for purpose optics. My lower has an aftermarket drop in trigger. I tend to run mine wet, and don’t have issues, except a few I had with the 5.56 chambering which I traced to a batch of bad ammo (kept popping primers causing issues). My Grendel upper has amazing accuracy at long range. It’s a great platform for it’s intended uses. I believe in using a hammer for nails and screw drivers for screws.
I've always heard the argument about AR's being more accurate than AK's and while that is technically true I think that most folks have just been using that as a talking point for years without having any actual data to back it up. I've put thousands of rounds down range through an M4 and I have to say that at 300m I can't tell the difference in accuracy between an M4 and an AK-47. Beyond that the difference do present themselves a bit but when I think of practical real world applications I don't see myself needing a laser accurate firearm to engage targets at like 500m+ very often.
At those distances the person has more of an impact than the firearm in my opinion. For normal use I much prefer the durability of the AK over the slightly better accuracy of the AR at 500m. It isn't a sniper rifle....
I too prefer the durability and weight of the AK to the slight accuracy and ergonomic difference of the AR.
I'd be sort of afraid to butt stroke someone with an AR and then shoot it after, but I'll clobber the **** out of someone with my AK if I have to and not even feel the need to check it over before firing.
The AK does indeed make a better club than the AR.
But... is that really the metric you want to go with?
Separate names with a comma.