I was watching Military Channel’s Top Tens and they were going over the top ten rifles. The top two were the AK-47 and the M-16. It didn’t shock me really that the number one was the AK-47. Based on the criteria they use to position rifles, it makes sense.
What got me thinking is the comments of some of the so called “experts.” Comments along the lines of ‘the AK -47 would be their weapon of choice.’ One guy said that if the when the West melts down, he would want an AK-47 as his weapon of choice. One other ‘expert’ said that if he were going to another planet and had the choice of any rifle he would choose the AK-47. I can let that one slide.
What I have a hard time fathoming is the choice of the heavier (~12lbs loaded), less accurate, shorter range, lower ammo availability, lower parts availability of the AK-47 when you have the choice of the lighter (~8lbs loaded), more accurate, longer range, greater ammo availability, greater parts availability, greater accessory capabilities of the AR platform (M16/M4/et al).
Now having used the AK-47 in the military on occasion, it was fun to shoot as it was different, but neither myself nor anyone else I worked/trained with would ever chose the AK over the AR-x.
The ergonomics, accuracy, flexibility, etc.
Maybe some of you guys who own both can provide a bit of insight as to why one would choose the AK-47 as the go to gun in a SHTF scenario!
Beleive it or not there are accurate enough AK’s in the world. The AR definitely has an upper hand in more than a few things as everyone knows. The Ak takes less training to know how to operate it, is more reliable, costs less to produce, and I would imagine could be produced faster than the m16/ar15. I personally like both, so that’s why I have both.
I prefer both, though in the unlikely event of a SHTF scenario where it actually mattered, I could see handing the AK to a relative and keeping one of the 5.56 weapons in hand for myself.
Until something happens that causes both a breakdown of society and random extreme violence, it’s all just mental masturbation. By that time, the AR and AK may be outclassed by energy weapons anyway :lol:
I think it was Larry Vickers that said (correct me if I’m wrong) that the AK is more accurate than people give it credit for and the AR is more reliable than people give it credit for.
This is absolutely true. On the whole, yes, AR’s tend to be more accurate and AK’s tend to be more reliable/less finicky. However, I don’t think that there is so much of a variation in either field to determine one as the Holy Grail because it is more (insert merits).
I don’t place much value in these TV shows, often showing a watermelon or water jug as proof of “devastating power.” I own several of each, and for me I prefer the AR due to ergonomics, but I wouldn’t be the least bit concerned if my SHTF gun was an AK.
I would feel well armed with either the AR or the AK. As with anything each have their + and- . Even to stir the pot more I like both the Glock as well as the XD. Put a gun in my hands and I’ll learn shoot it so to say.
Right here, where we are matters also. Go get a new CHF barrel put on your AK - here in the US - doable, but hard. Do it with an AR - “that’s easy”. Likewise, replace a bolt in an AK vice a BCG in an AR.
Different strength/weaknesses:
AR: Very good accuracy for a bit longer range/precision. Great sites OTB. Most easy to accessorize. Easy to fix. Superb ergos.
AK: Utter reliability under all conditions. Lots of punch at combat ranges (M67). 7.62 rd is a tad more versatile/adaptable to different scenarios - room clearing to deer hunting/survival.
Then there is the best of both worlds; VZ-58. Light. reliable, fairly accurate… (OK, it has its own set of limitations).
When the Marines in Fallujah, Iraq battled insurgents, etc, there was an investigation of the Marines on the whole because the dead bodies looked like they were being executed by American soldiers. Why? The shot from the Marines’ M16 rifle were so accurate it appears as though they were shooting the enemy up close when in fact they were shooting them from hundreds of meters away.
The AK in general terms is a 5 MOA rifle. Sure you can get less MOA in an AK, but in general terms the AR is a 2-3 MOA rifle. Also, you can carry more rounds on a pound for pound basis over an AK.
I will admit however, that no matter what when the population sees the AK they shit their pants as opposed to the AR. :big_boss:
I have owned AR’s since 1977, AK’s since 1987, still own a lot of both. The AR is the go to weapon of choice. Current fav is colt 6940. Depending on the situation I would take it over other more “fun” guns, FA thompson, grease gun, MAC, BAR, etc. Of course I want to take them all, prob not in the cards though, depending.
I believe sights would be a contributing factor as to why people insist they are inherently inaccurate. Any quality AK I’ve ever owned shot well under 4moa with the crappiest of ammo.
Actually, the AK by design is not accurate since the large moving mass called the bolt carrier is off center so when the rifle recoils not only does it slam agains the rear of the rifle but also because it is off-center which throws the gun and then it slams forward again.
The AK47 has such great tolerance to allow for reliability that it sacrifices accuracy even at medium range, 100-200 meters.
5 MOA is what I was taught while in the service when we had to learn about the “enemy’s” weapons so that we could pick up one if we had to and instinctively know how to use it and maintain it.
The best one is the one that the user has experience and training with and knows how to repair and maintain.
FN-FAL to VZ58, competancy and maintainability trump all.
Sounds like you are simply repeating information that you were told, rather than what you actually know from personal experience.
I can assure you that you are dead wrong, as I have personally shot an AK out to 600 yards with great success.
Here is a thought… Instead of simply repeating things that are untrue, why not go out and shoot an AK for a couple days to find out for yourself, before you make yourself look even less credible…
For general combat use, accuracy, reliability, and speed of operation differences are NEGLIGABLE.
These guns are so much different on paper, but in actual use, they are so similar its depressing that people spend so much time arguing which is better. They are basically the same thing. For combat out to 300yds, it doesnt matter which one you get, if you practice, any situation you find yourself in will end the same no matter which gun you have.