What is the point of getting an AK and making it look like AR?

[baraban7.62 20]

i see so many people buying saigas, wasr's, arsenals, etc and "modernizing" them to look like ARs, Why?

[haugpatr 972]

The advantage of the AK is more reliability and more brute force at closer ranges. Rails work well for lights/lasers/grips on any rifle.

[jmzzl 146]

I do not necessarily condone these actions, but I'd wager its not always looks. ARs are modular, normally practical, and tactical. I see nothing wrong with adding a rail and collapsible stock if that's your thing.

 

Then of course the AR in fact does look cool lol.

Edited October 13, 2011 by angrychair

[dayofruin 425]

From my experience, some people that do that have AR's before owning an AK type. They prefer the feel of that stock over the standard ak stock. This was the case with myself. I have a magppul stock on my S-12. Then you have those that like the action but think the AK is inferior in ergonomics and needs modernization to function properly. I disagree with that idea. As far as my rifles go, I am getting used to the traditional stocks. I like simple. It's all personal preference in what feels good to you.

[shades_of_grey 1,092]

Here's the best response to this question I've ever seen:

 

 

Edited October 13, 2011 by post-apocalyptic

[Heath_h49008 442]

Functionality with common attachments would imply similar attachment points/profile.

 

Or, to put it another way....

 

Some of us care more about how our weapons FUNCTION and less about if they look like a monument to Mikhail Kalashnikov.

[gunfun 3,931]

Here are a few reasons:

 

Why not? They like it. It's their gun not yours.

 

Also, while the manual of arms isn't the same, having a similar feel tends toward better familiarity with your weapons and more consistency in results. Some people just want all their guns to match. That's a legit reason.

 

The orignial question actually answers itself. The kalashikov is not modern. Mag wells, ergonomics, controls, accuracy, cartridge and projectile design, and just about everything else have been improved in the last 70 years. Go figure. As for the "don't mess with a classic" argument, why aren't you using a mauser? They work great. Are all the hunting rifles based of the mauser design a cheap tasteless modernization, or are they just using the good elements of an old design and fitting them to current wants and needs?

 

 

What's with all these people putting shotgun shells in their Kalashnikovs? Saint Kalasnikov intended for his gun (not yours) to be a full caliber assault rifle made as cheaply as possible to fight Americans, not a versatile practical tool for Americans. Oh, and a bunch of people including Mr. K. have changed things around many times in many ways. Are only a few of these legitimate changes?

 

From what I have seen, the AK philosophy and the AR style components actually have a lot of common shared philsophy: Simple, cheap, modular, adaptable, easy to adjust or strip on the fly, intuitive to use. AKs can have folding stocks, but telescoping is nice too, and simple, and cheap. Why not both? The late 40's the Russians wanted the most modern functional cheap gun they could build, they borrowed ideas from several prior designs. In the teens, many want the same thing.

 

Whats with all the people with Russian guns and bayonet lugs and or bayonets and cleaning rods? Are they planning to enlist in World War 1? are you going to have to clean the bore with a clumsy rod at the range? All that crap is just as much posturing as the tacticool stuff. It all could be used in theory, but it won't be. Those guys really have it because they think it is cool, and that is a good enough reason. Guess what- I think most of their guns do look pretty cool.

 

I happen to like both, many. I think the race guns are cool. Ditto for a lot of the mall ninja rigs, and I think the classic AK 74 stuff looks great. Is it ok to have all three? One of mine is going to be a mutt and the other is going as classic as I can do without major expense. If you want to carve a skull into your stock, or an ugly goat thing, that's fine with me, and if you love it and are good with it all the better.

[MT Predator 2,294]

While I appreciate and like the classic Kalashnikov look, I prefer to shoot one that has been modernized a bit. A M4 style telescoping buttstock allows the LOP to be adjusted for clothing, gear, armor, as well as the shooter. A rail system allows for practical accessories like a VFG or AFG, lights, etc. Replacing the tiny pistol grip with a larger modern one is a plus as well IMO. I also like using the Krebs/Blackjack/Dinzag style safeties. The end result does kind of look AR-ish but for me it is not intentional while some others do it for the look.

[Dad2142Dad 6,559]

I just like to tinker around with them

[Arik 565]

I more of a traditionalist, k.i.s.s. I like the original look with wood stocks and hand guards. I also like the more modern look with polymer, bakelite, "plastic" furniture. But Im not against some of the upgrades I've seen. Baryl rail, Rails on the hand guards (not to be confused with hand guards made out of rails) I also dont care if it has a cleaning rod or bayo lug or a "correct" front sight base/rear sight leaf. Those are nice if it came with the rifle I was buying but Im not going to add them to a rifle that doesnt have them, To me its the overall look and not any spacific part. What I cant stand is when every square inch of the front portion of the rifle is covered with rails and accessories. A scope on top, a red dot on the side (incase you gotta go gangsta), lazer on the other side, flash light and a seperate bipod hanging of the bottom.....

[TonyRumore 1,332]

The original AR design is not really modular other than it splits in half. The aftermarket made it somewhat modular by redesigning the whole fucking thing so guys could snap shit on their guns like legos.

 

If the AR was a real modular design, the buttstock, barrel, trigger pack etc, would all quick disconnect.

 

Tony

[CBR Shadow 53]

Here are a few reasons:

 

Why not? They like it. It's their gun not yours.

 

Also, while the manual of arms isn't the same, having a similar feel tends toward better familiarity with your weapons and more consistency in results. Some people just want all their guns to match. That's a legit reason.

 

The orignial question actually answers itself. The kalashikov is not modern. Mag wells, ergonomics, controls, accuracy, cartridge and projectile design, and just about everything else have been improved in the last 70 years. Go figure. As for the "don't mess with a classic" argument, why aren't you using a mauser? They work great. Are all the hunting rifles based of the mauser design a cheap tasteless modernization, or are they just using the good elements of an old design and fitting them to current wants and needs?

 

 

What's with all these people putting shotgun shells in their Kalashnikovs? Saint Kalasnikov intended for his gun (not yours) to be a full caliber assault rifle made as cheaply as possible to fight Americans, not a versatile practical tool for Americans. Oh, and a bunch of people including Mr. K. have changed things around many times in many ways. Are only a few of these legitimate changes?

 

From what I have seen, the AK philosophy and the AR style components actually have a lot of common shared philsophy: Simple, cheap, modular, adaptable, easy to adjust or strip on the fly, intuitive to use. AKs can have folding stocks, but telescoping is nice too, and simple, and cheap. Why not both? The late 40's the Russians wanted the most modern functional cheap gun they could build, they borrowed ideas from several prior designs. In the teens, many want the same thing.

 

Whats with all the people with Russian guns and bayonet lugs and or bayonets and cleaning rods? Are they planning to enlist in World War 1? are you going to have to clean the bore with a clumsy rod at the range? All that crap is just as much posturing as the tacticool stuff. It all could be used in theory, but it won't be. Those guys really have it because they think it is cool, and that is a good enough reason. Guess what- I think most of their guns do look pretty cool.

 

I happen to like both, many. I think the race guns are cool. Ditto for a lot of the mall ninja rigs, and I think the classic AK 74 stuff looks great. Is it ok to have all three? One of mine is going to be a mutt and the other is going as classic as I can do without major expense. If you want to carve a skull into your stock, or an ugly goat thing, that's fine with me, and if you love it and are good with it all the better.

Well said! I agree w/ everything said here.

[timy 1,185]

Here's the best response to this question I've ever seen:

 

 

 

I suppose, but didn't the Russian military say they weren't going to buy any more AKs until they were modernized a bit? No doubt the AK 47 is a classic, but that doesn't mean the overall platform can't be improved some.

[gunfun 3,931]

The original AR design is not really modular other than it splits in half. The aftermarket made it somewhat modular by redesigning the whole fucking thing so guys could snap shit on their guns like legos.

 

If the AR was a real modular design, the buttstock, barrel, trigger pack etc, would all quick disconnect.

 

Tony

 

True enough, and I certainly bow to your superior knowledge, but it has become modular now. For much the same reasons as the AK platform. The original AR was made for a government and is an also now an antique. It was good enough to be popular, Now nearly every single component has been improved or adjusted for personal preference by someone. I know I have seen modular match trigger packs being sold for ARs. There are a bunch of alternatives for changing the ergonomics, making it heavier, lighter, and even to fit some massive cartridges that Mr. Stoner never intended. I am glad it is. Of course many of those things can be a lateral move or make the thing worse, but many don't, and most of the crappy things either quit being made, or get a very cheap knock off, and no one makes you put them on your weapon.

 

A very cool side effect of all of that is that if anyone wants to introduce a competing model to market, they have to do at least as well on most of the features, so most all the modern assault rifles have good gas systems, low recoil, light weight, fast mag changes, ambidextrous controls, and either a bullpup or a folding option.

 

This effect has flowed out across the whole industry. Think of those neat little Russian revolvers. They may as well be called evolvers, because they have a bunch of modern concepts the American manufacturers decided should stay in the 1800's. They brought back top-break which was awesome, and had only been abandoned because of inferior metallurgy when gun powder got good. They introduced the pistol from day one with modular trigger packs in single only, double-single, double only, and varying degrees of trigger pull. Think of that. The first world and Brazil have a bunch of catching up to do. (of course there are basically none of them in circulation, so they have little market effect.) Basically American companies have been working to make their pistols into Glocks, which is kind of the opposite of making them adaptable to customer taste. (Think of it. pretty much all the new revolver models are plastic framed versions of their prior models. I'm not knocking the Glocks either, I am just saying that they are basically one piece of plastic and very few changable parts. If you don't like the feel of the gun to start with, there isn't really much you can do to change it significantly.) These Russian revolvers ain't classic Single Action Army, but they are cool, and you can still buy a Peacemaker if you want it.

 

I forgot the big one. The AK 74 was the real AR-ification of the AK, and it was done by the CCCP! They realized that controlability trumped impact ballistics, and made an equivalent to .223.

Edited October 13, 2011 by GunFun

[Joseph 141]

Your all forgetting the 5.56 or 5.45 is 35-40% lighter which means 35-40% more ammo carry capacity

 

and i like my collapsing stock, quad rail and my md grip on my Saiga .223, it still looks like an AK though

 

i even like the red dot

Edited October 13, 2011 by Joebanks

[TO THE FLOOR IN A 63 121]

Alright I am one of those guys who put a collapsible stock on my AK and here are some of the reasons I did it. I had taken the wood off and made my converted saiga 7.62x39 a black gun several years ago. During this change I put on a US forgrip ...midland industries or some such thing... and a black plastic stock for compliance issues. So I am good to go with a black AK with foreign mags. But I shoot matches...even though I am slow as paint drying I still get out there and have fun. Anyway, last year we started doing more two gun matches (pistol/rifle) so I put on the collapsible stock to lenghten my AK as the stock felt too short and I had the collapsible stock around anyway, didn't want to spend money on another black plastic (nato) stock and the collapsible stock may compensate for different clothing...we shoot March to November. Now as a side note EVERYONE has an AR and I am the only one shooting with an AK. The club emails even state that you can't use Russian ammo...but I ordered Brown Bear soft point for the matches and they let me get away with that...and this last match we didn't shoot the clubs steel targets anyway. That steel core shit just eats them up.

[going12220 125]

Guess I missed this I’ve never seen an AK that looked that much like an AR even from a distance. I’ve seen a troll that looked hot from a mile off on the beach but I wear glasses so that shouldn’t count.