DrDyno 12 Posted April 7, 2012 Report Share Posted April 7, 2012 (edited) As a relatively newcomer to the Saiga family, having taken my AK conversion to the range just one time, I came away from that outing having truly enjoyed the experience. I like my Saiga a great deal, much more than a friend's AR chambered in Short Russian (7.62X39). So, from time to time, I Google "AK47 vs. AR15," as I did last evening. I'd say 60-70% of those comparisons come away favoring the AR15. Judgements such as: More accurate, accurate to 600 yards, more energy past 400 yards are almost always shown on the plus side of the AR15 equation. However, when it comes to reliability and durability, the AK is ALWAYS the hands-down favorite. I have come to the conclusion that the comparisons are flawed. The reason is they contain unequal equations. They're NOT comparing two comparable platforms; they're comparing one platform designed for 7.62X39 with another designed for 5.56X45. The comparison is as much about the cartridge as it is about the rifle! For an equal comparison, you would have to compare an AK in 5.56 with an AR in 5.56 OR... an AK in 7.62 with an AR in 7.62. All four of those combinations are available to the public. So, with the ammo being equal, most everything else becomes equal and the bottom line then becomes RELIABILITY! As biased as I am for all things American, in that scenario, I have to vote AK! (Oh, and... I can't even see 400 yards, much less hit anything that far away.) Edited April 7, 2012 by DrDyno 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
hutchsaiga 93 Posted April 7, 2012 Report Share Posted April 7, 2012 Please god not this again. And by the way. I'm a huge ak fan. But you failed to mention the big benefits of the ar platform. Weight, and sights But please not this same damn argument again 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DrDyno 12 Posted April 7, 2012 Author Report Share Posted April 7, 2012 Hey Hutchsaiga, how 'bout cutting a Newbie a break? And, thanks for your those two elusive insights. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
canoecanoe 63 Posted April 7, 2012 Report Share Posted April 7, 2012 I do like the light weight of the AR, but to me they are a pain to keep clean. The Ak is much easier to clean and maintain. That is whyt I got rid of my AR's and am currently AK oriented. I have AK's in both 7.62x39 and 5.56x45, so I have the cartridge issue covered. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
markdavidson 28 Posted April 7, 2012 Report Share Posted April 7, 2012 well if it's any consolation DrDyno I agree with your assessment, and I'll add the observation that people are comfortable comparing a $1200 AR to a $400.00 crooked WASR. not really fair 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Garys4598 1,065 Posted April 7, 2012 Report Share Posted April 7, 2012 Hey Hutchsaiga, how 'bout cutting a Newbie a break? For this particular forum thread that you've started, I say we don't. I for one feel hutchsaiga was spot-on. The theme of this topic has been utterly . 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
devildogdakota 804 Posted April 7, 2012 Report Share Posted April 7, 2012 They are kind of fun to read, now and them. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DrDyno 12 Posted April 7, 2012 Author Report Share Posted April 7, 2012 Hey Hutchsaiga, how 'bout cutting a Newbie a break? For this particular forum thread that you've started, I say we don't. I for one feel hutchsaiga was spot-on. The theme of this topic has been utterly . Well, Gary, before posting my observation, I did several forum searches. And, even with just "AR15" as the search criteria, I went through four full pages of threads and found exactly zero comments similar to mine. So, if this has been beaten to death, my apologies. You'd never know it to search the forum. Oh and, I also searched to see if anyone cares what you say and, same result. Zero. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Long Shot 1,287 Posted April 7, 2012 Report Share Posted April 7, 2012 Fully expected to open this to raging flame war. You fuckers are all civile and shit, what gives? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Foxtrot Oscar 37 Posted April 7, 2012 Report Share Posted April 7, 2012 Oh and, I also searched to see if anyone cares what you say and, same result. Zero. Chill. I'd say about 80-95% of gun comparisons are done in stupid context. Failing to explain the differences in cartridges and their roles is a BIG PROBLEM out there. Most media totally ignores the difference between cartridge and the actual weapon platform. But ARs in 7.62x39 and AKs in 5.56 are oddball rifles. I do plan on getting a Saiga .223 as my first semi-auto centerfire. Ex: colt propaganda ie: "M14 is a failure because you can't hit your target enemy without aiming! and the ammo is too heavy! Everyone needs full auto!" Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jbanzai 113 Posted April 8, 2012 Report Share Posted April 8, 2012 Then there's the question of piston ARs vs. direct impingment which doesn't seem to get brought up very often. Also, I've seen the AK vs. AR debate on other forums where a member's opinion has changed after a couple of years and has new insight to offer. I have a regular AK. When it came time to add 556/223 to my collection, the issue was ammo. I can shoot cheap, steel case ammo all day and not have to clean the thing when I get home if I don't feel like it. Spending $100 more per 1000 rds, and having to go through a more thorough cleaning regimine between outings meant alot to me. I have a friend who got a Ruger 556 piston AR who says it will eat anything. He is currently trying to see how rounds he can put through it before a failure. I'm curious to see the results. This AR is more intriguing to me, but since I already have a 556 Saiga, I don't see the point. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cpltk2 6 Posted April 8, 2012 Report Share Posted April 8, 2012 LOL Keep the comments coming! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
devildogdakota 804 Posted April 8, 2012 Report Share Posted April 8, 2012 ... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jbanzai 113 Posted April 8, 2012 Report Share Posted April 8, 2012 Oh come on guys...you gotta occasionally rehash topics otherwise there'd be nothing to post but stupid pics and smart ass comments.....HA!!!! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
hutchsaiga 93 Posted April 8, 2012 Report Share Posted April 8, 2012 (edited) Then there's the question of piston ARs vs. direct impingment which doesn't seem to get brought up very often. Also, I've seen the AK vs. AR debate on other forums where a member's opinion has changed after a couple of years and has new insight to offer. I have a regular AK. When it came time to add 556/223 to my collection, the issue was ammo. I can shoot cheap, steel case ammo all day and not have to clean the thing when I get home if I don't feel like it. Spending $100 more per 1000 rds, and having to go through a more thorough cleaning regimine between outings meant alot to me. I have a friend who got a Ruger 556 piston AR who says it will eat anything. He is currently trying to see how rounds he can put through it before a failure. I'm curious to see the results. This AR is more intriguing to me, but since I already have a 556 Saiga, I don't see the point. The ar piston gun topic doesn't come up very often. Becuase no company. And I mean NO company has solved the carrier tilt problem on a standard ar platform. Now RRA just came out with a totally resigned rifle that solves the problem but without a buffer extension it can't really even be considered and ar anymore. and there is no need for a piston ar in the first place. Keep a quality DI AR lubed and it will run forever. There's actually a guy over in zombiesquad who put somewhere in the area of 5000 rounds through his F/A SBR without cleaning with no failures and more than half was fired suppressed. Buy quality parts and run them wet and they will never fail. And jus becuase you're firing steel case doesn't mean you need to douche an ar after every range session. Just throw a little more lube in it and keep on trucking. But all that said I love my saiga and you have to appreciate the simplicity of the design. But when you know how to properly run the AR platform you absolutely cannot dog it for reliability. Just like when you know how to properly shoot an ak platform you can't dog it for accuracy. In summation they are both amazing designs by people for more brilliant than I. And I respect them both greatly End thread Edited April 8, 2012 by hutchsaiga Quote Link to post Share on other sites
hutchsaiga 93 Posted April 8, 2012 Report Share Posted April 8, 2012 Hey Hutchsaiga, how 'bout cutting a Newbie a break? For this particular forum thread that you've started, I say we don't. I for one feel hutchsaiga was spot-on. The theme of this topic has been utterly . Well, Gary, before posting my observation, I did several forum searches. And, even with just "AR15" as the search criteria, I went through four full pages of threads and found exactly zero comments similar to mine. So, if this has been beaten to death, my apologies. You'd never know it to search the forum. Oh and, I also searched to see if anyone cares what you say and, same result. Zero. Whoa whoa whoa take it easy and dont be snide. Maybe this topic hasnt been fully covered on this board but it has on hundreds of other ones. Try a quick google search and you'll find many great threads with excellent insight. It's a topic that comes up far to often and the only answer is this; Both rifles have strengths and both have weaknesses. There is no perfect military rifle but the AR and the AK platforms are both just about as close as you can get currently and have been for decades. Now...really... End thread 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Joseph 141 Posted April 8, 2012 Report Share Posted April 8, 2012 AK better for accuracy Ar more reliable AK has better sights and is lighter AR 15 has a bigger and stronger bullet AK has lighter bullets for more carry AR 15 has stronger magizines AK shoots sub MOA AR 15 shoots 10' at 100 yards AK has more accessories AR 15 has bayonets that cut wires anda carry handle Quote Link to post Share on other sites
preparehandbook 326 Posted April 8, 2012 Report Share Posted April 8, 2012 Please god not this again. And by the way. I'm a huge ak fan. But you failed to mention the big benefits of the ar platform. Weight, and sights But please not this same damn argument again Yet we are all here..... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Deadeye 325 Posted April 8, 2012 Report Share Posted April 8, 2012 lol 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
preparehandbook 326 Posted April 8, 2012 Report Share Posted April 8, 2012 (edited) Armchair rangers and mall ninjas often argue why the AR platform is so awesome, but it's mediocre real world performance has dogged it and those who've carried it since day one. For paper punching it's purely preferance based, but in combat several problems over ride it's benefits: Poor performance in nasty conditions. When Jessica Lynch and her convoy were ambushed, EVERY one of their weapons jammed due to sand. This is sadly far from uncommon. Poor real world long range performance poor performance when clothing is involved. Australia's conclusion after studying several years of Afghan experience was that when it 5.56 encountered heavy winter clothing it routinely failed to incapacitate the target. Inconsistent performance, in the above mentioned Australian study they concluded that even with lightly clothed targets many of the wounds produced by 5.56 were "indistinguishable from wounds produced by .22 magnum" The most common assualt rifle in the world is the AK with well over 10 AKs made to every AR (100 million AKs - 8 million ARs) The simple fact is that as far as which is the more effective combat rifle, there really isn't any question. This is a subject only for forums, the real world has long since declared the winner. Edited April 8, 2012 by preparehandbook 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tatonic 159 Posted April 8, 2012 Report Share Posted April 8, 2012 Armchair rangers and mall ninjas often argue why the AR platform is so awesome, but it's mediocre real world performance has dogged it and those who've carried it since day one. For paper punching it's purely preferance based, but in combat several problems over ride it's benefits: Poor performance in nasty conditions. When Jessica Lynch and her convoy were ambushed, EVERY one of their weapons jammed due to sand. This is sadly far from uncommon. Poor real world long range performance poor performance when clothing is involved. Australia's conclusion after studying several years of Afghan experience was that when it 5.56 encountered heavy winter clothing it routinely failed to incapacitate the target. Inconsistent performance, in the above mentioned Australian study they concluded that even with lightly clothed targets many of the wounds produced by 5.56 were "indistinguishable from wounds produced by .22 magnum" The most common assualt rifle in the world is the AK with well over 10 AKs made to every AR (100 million AKs - 8 million ARs) The simple fact is that as far as which is the more effective combat rifle, there really isn't any question. This is a subject only for forums, the real world has long since declared the winner. I would say that if the military used .223 hunting rounds such as DHS ordered, many of these underpenetrations would be negated. And I would definately pick my .50Beowulf over my Saiga 7.62 for anything except dragging thru the sand. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jbanzai 113 Posted April 8, 2012 Report Share Posted April 8, 2012 And jus becuase you're firing steel case doesn't mean you need to douche an ar after every range session. Just throw a little more lube in it and keep on trucking. It was my understanding that some, maybe most, AR's simply won't digest steel case ammo. I know quite a few have warranties that become void if you use this bastard, primitive ammo. How they could prove that is beyond me. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
calvin118 2 Posted April 8, 2012 Report Share Posted April 8, 2012 (edited) I have both and enjoy shooting both. Better is relative to what you are looking for. Here is how I see the comparison break down for AR-15 vs. AK-74: The AR is lighter, more compact, and better balanced. The controls (safety, mag release, trigger) on the AR are better The ergonomics on the AR are better The AR has a greater capacity for accuracy with match grade ammunition. You will not, however see much of a difference shooting cheap ammo. The AK is more accurate than a lot of people think, so long as you don't have a parts gun with a 40 year old shot out military barrel. The barrel nut and small gas tube on the AR make it amenable to accepting sturdy, light weight rails. I find these very useful, as the better ones allow you to get your hand out close to the end of the barrel with little or no weight penalty. This leads to better recoil control, makes the gun easier to drive, and allows me to run a shorter stock and thus a more compact gun. All of the long AK rails I have seen are too bulky and heavy to be worth the trade off, which is due in large part to the huge gas tube. The AR aftermarket is better developed for accessories such as triggers and muzzle devices. A well built AR is extremely reliable, and a quality specimen from BCM, Daniel Defense, Noveske etc. will run until you drop without ever being cleaned as long as you put a couple drops of lube on the BCG every 500 rounds or so. The platform has come a lot of 40 years. I have seen ARs that are utterly disgusting run so long as they are kept minimally lubed. A bone dry AR will probably go about 1000 rounds before it starts locking up due to fouling. The AK is definitely more tolerant of abuse, and will run a lot longer in a state of utter neglect. The AK has more forgiving manufacturing tolerances, which is why most of them work. The AR design is far less forgiving of deviations from the TDP, which is why you have so many Oly Arms and DPMS guns out there that don't work. On the AK, certain parts such as the ejector, extractor, bolt, and firing pin are considerably more durable. The caveat, however, is that when these parts do break you probably can't fix them yourself. The AR is designed to be modular, and any of these broken parts can be replaced very quickly in the field with an easily obtained drop-in part. With the AK, you run into head space issues if you need to replace your bolt and you might need a new receiver if your ejector breaks. All things considered, I prefer the AR so long as it comes from a top tier manufacturer. It is a more nimble and ergonomic package that is completely modular, and can be repaired in the field with easily obtained drop-in replacement parts. To me, these benefits outweigh the costs of the AR, which are keeping it lubed (a small bottle of Mobil 1 could last for years) and having to replace small parts more frequently. Both are very capable, and the person pulling the trigger is the key. Edited April 8, 2012 by calvin118 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
calvin118 2 Posted April 8, 2012 Report Share Posted April 8, 2012 Armchair rangers and mall ninjas often argue why the AR platform is so awesome, but it's mediocre real world performance has dogged it and those who've carried it since day one. For paper punching it's purely preferance based, but in combat several problems over ride it's benefits: Poor performance in nasty conditions. When Jessica Lynch and her convoy were ambushed, EVERY one of their weapons jammed due to sand. This is sadly far from uncommon. Poor real world long range performance poor performance when clothing is involved. Australia's conclusion after studying several years of Afghan experience was that when it 5.56 encountered heavy winter clothing it routinely failed to incapacitate the target. Inconsistent performance, in the above mentioned Australian study they concluded that even with lightly clothed targets many of the wounds produced by 5.56 were "indistinguishable from wounds produced by .22 magnum" The most common assualt rifle in the world is the AK with well over 10 AKs made to every AR (100 million AKs - 8 million ARs) The simple fact is that as far as which is the more effective combat rifle, there really isn't any question. This is a subject only for forums, the real world has long since declared the winner. The poor terminal performance of certain 5.56 rounds is not an intrinsic quality of the caliber, but rather the ammunition. M855 out of certain barrels and at certain angles of impact will not upset/fragment early enough, which does indeed produce terminal effects similar to .22 magnum. The new mk318 is a big improvement. Frankly, I would argue that classic M43 7.62x39 is probably even worse against unobstructed targets. Instead of not upsetting reliably, it reliably does not upset. http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19885 According to Vickers and other knowledgeable individuals, the vast majority of AR problems in the military are the result of old, abused magazines with worn out feed lips that never get taken out of circulation or other worn out or broken parts. With reasonable maintenance, the AR is very reliable. There are certainly more AK's in the world, but that does not argue for or against whether the system is 'better'. Rather, that is a reflection of cost, ease of manufacture, the influence of planned economies, and the fact that the Soviets used to basically give them away to anyone who said they didn't like America. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
preparehandbook 326 Posted April 8, 2012 Report Share Posted April 8, 2012 calvin118 makes a lot of very good points. At the moment the AR and AK are the two rifles that most folks decide between, I assume that will eventually change and I wonder what the next generation of weapons will look like. When I was young both the AR and AK were not terribly well respected in the circles I worked in. The AR was considered fragile (and the old ones were a litttle less robust) and the AK was seen as a clunky inaccurate peasant gun. The HK, FAL and to some extent the M14 were seen as "serious" battle rifles. I own an AR and an AK and like them both. If zombies attacked and I had to grab just one? Probably my S12, but I would feel adequately armed with either platform. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Long Shot 1,287 Posted April 8, 2012 Report Share Posted April 8, 2012 AK better for accuracy Ar more reliable AK has better sights and is lighter AR 15 has a bigger and stronger bullet AK has lighter bullets for more carry AR 15 has stronger magizines AK shoots sub MOA AR 15 shoots 10' at 100 yards AK has more accessories AR 15 has bayonets that cut wires anda carry handle Here it is in a nut shell, factual representation of the facts and stuff. Anyone with half a brain can see the AR-47 is far superior to the AK-15 and I know cuz I know more shit about guns than half the guys at my work. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DogMan 2,343 Posted April 8, 2012 Report Share Posted April 8, 2012 (Well, I might as well jump on this bucking bronco and see if I can ride it for 8 seconds} Weight, accuracy, sights,...etc...etc...etc. None of that matters if nothing comes out the end of the barrel. That has to be job #1 for any gun so........AK (by a slim margin) for me when the S hits the F. I do think the AR is a perfectly fine platform for anyone that is familiar and dedicated to it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DrDyno 12 Posted April 8, 2012 Author Report Share Posted April 8, 2012 In an effort to support my point-of-view that an AK is the preferred weapon of choice in urban environments, I did several "Image" searches in Google. I searched for Special Forces in Iraq, Special Forces in Afghanistan, Delta Force in Iraq, Mercenaries in Iraq, Blackwater in Iraq, etc. What I expected to see where big, burly guys carrying AKs one-handed with a solo-sling arrangement. What I found was something entirely different. Almost without exception, through hundreds of pics, the type of US forces who can choose any weapon they want... were carrying some variant of the AR. Based upon that and the excellent information many of you provided, above, I'm going to have to rethink taking any particular stance in this debate. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Rhodes1968 1,638 Posted April 8, 2012 Report Share Posted April 8, 2012 http://www.cleveland.com/world/index.ssf/2009/10/in_2008_afghan_firefight_us_we.html nuff said. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
thehun 20 Posted April 8, 2012 Report Share Posted April 8, 2012 I have both so I have the best of both worlds.... To me here it goes: AK: simple design, effective round sub 250yrds, easy up keep AR: effective weight, superior accuracy, easier to handle Now when it comes to reliability, my AR has been as reliable as my AK (i have over 5000rnds through my AR and never had an issue with original barrel and internals) rule of thumb, get a quality rifle no bushwackers or dpms crap. MOST IMPORTANT THING IN AN AR PLATFORM is your guts (bolt and bolt carrier, buffer spring and extractor spring replacement after 3000rnds) There is no need for fancy triggers, just get a good milspec trigger Another quick tid bit...you will never ever ever use an AR platform to shoot over 150-200yrds if that in the real world urban environment we live in...all of my guns are designed with that in mind...just saying...be real HERE IS THE KICKER OF ALL KICKERS...A PARTICULAR FIREARM IS ONLY GOOD AS THE OPERATOR BEHIND SO GUESS WHAT IF YOU SUCK AT SHOOTING, YOU WILL SUCK WITH EITHER RIFLE 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.