Preference, AK or M16

[khopdog]

Which one would you prefer to go into dangerous situation with, AK or m16. For the senario well just say you don't know what to expect, you could be indoors, outdoors, long range, or short range.

[Necron99]

Well this discussion has been had before on this website, so here we go again! I would take an AK (preferably a 7.62x39 Valmet, but any good AK would do) over an AR any day of the week, and here's why. One reliability, I have never had an AK jam (except w/ hollowpoints on a Polytech Legend I own, it just won't take them period) under any circumstance, hot or cold, clean or dirty. I have had good milspec ARs jam. They also cycle rather sluggishly in cold weather (which is important here in Montana)a dirty AR in cold weather is NOT reliable. The worst part about an AR jam is they are not easy to clear. One incident involved bad primers in Canadian military ammo, the primers blew out causing the bolt carrier to lock up bad, took over an hour to fix, translation dead meat. This would not and does not happen in AK's of any sort. Occasionally ARs will double feed or not clear a empty case and then cram another round into the chamber causing a lockup. You cannot open the gun up because the bolt carrier is partially in the stock and the charging handles on AR's are awkwardly placed to clear these kind of jams. Definitely not what you want when your life is on the line. Then you get into the .223 vs 7.62x39 debate. First thing, try firing a .223 especially from a 16" (or even 20")barrel without hearing protection, it will be the last time you'll want to do that. The AK round is tolerable without hearing protection. Both rounds are easily to make quick follow up shots with. Take a look around your neighborhood/neck of the woods and ask yourself this question. Is it better to have a very accurate (1-2MOA)AR with little real life tactical penetration, or an AK which has fairly poor sights, shoots 3-6 MOA, but has decent penetrating power? Keep in mind in a SHTF/combat scenario clear open shots at targets are almost non-existant. Also what is the furthest distance your realistically going to use the rifle at, history has shown that the avg distance for infantry firefights is under 50 meters. The accuracy issue is academic(if you want a long range rifle get a .308 or larger, not a militarized 22-250 which is basically what a .223 is), real life experience shows that AKs are plenty accurate for their intended role. .223 is more deadly at short ranges than the 7.62x39 round, assuming there is nothing in between you and target. Well that enough for me, I'm sure you'll get all sorts of opinions, so let the fun begin! PS:You might want to check a couple month old post on the General Discussion under "AK74vsM16 which is better".

[Tomac]

Necron99, well put! I completely agree. When my a** is on the line I want nothing less than total reliability. Every AR I've ever owned has jammed at one time or another. I've never experienced a jam or malfunction of any kind with my AKs (although, to be honest, a friend recently had some feed problems with a preban sidefolder while using a recoil buffer. Worked fine w/o the buffer. Turns out the gas port was clogged, he hadn't cleaned/fired it in 5 years! Had it fixed in under 30 seconds...) I'll take a little less accuracy & a little more recoil for a system I know I can depend on...
Tomac

[Chun Kwong 56]

Khopdog, these guys know thier stuff about guns and how to use them,the AK rules world wide for good reasons. There is no more reliable auto system anywhere. You don't do S.P.O.R.T.S.with an AK. The AR sucks in the wet weather,the .223 is devastating to thin skinned critters, marginal for deer and is not a brush buster. Next heavy rain,go to the range and try the comparison.You will find the AR won't be able to reliably hit the target, don't know if it's the rain affecting the bullet in flight or the water getting in the muzzle brake that cuases the deflection, but this has happened since the V.N.era.Also watch the L.A.bank robbery video, these idiots had great guns,an H-K and AK,just spayed bullets in the air.It took 300 cops to stop them,one shot himself in the head the other bled to death, no m.o.a. shots from across a car. Also the perp who bled out was hit in legs mostly, I have harvested some good sized deer with one 7.62x39 h.p.They don't go to far after a well placed hit. Whatever you choose enjoy it and practice alot. Thanks

[Floyd]

If accuracy is a real concern, there are AK variants that will even it up. The Galil, FN/FNC, and South African R4 will all hold their own against the M16 without all those locking lugs to jam...

------------------
Join the NRA!!!

[Destroyer]

A few other things about the AR15/M-16: 1) It's make of plastic and aluminum-- not too sturdy!
2) The sights are too high above the bore in my opinion-- makes accurate shots in high stress sitautions difficult
3) The AR is longer making it less ideal for tight places
4) To its merit, it has a *much* more nicley placed safety


I think I'd go with simple and tough; I'd go AK

[This message has been edited by Destroyer (edited July 15, 1999).]

[recon]

The fnc you talked about is one fine weapon. It has the same style gas piston and bolt like the ak and takes ar mags. cleaning this rifle is a snap.

[khopdog]

I would agree with most of what everyone has said (including this subject has been beat like a dead horse). I would prefer AK in every senario except a long range accuracy situation (and with more training and experience I might change my mind on that senario too but I just havent tried my AK past 100 meters). I don't understand why they don't combine the AK with the M16 and make the best of both worlds. The only real complaint I have about the AK is the safety system sucks bad, a minor complaint is a bolt hold open device but not necessary. I wonder how the russian arm forces train their soldiers with AK's, do they do like our Army and fire at pop up targets out to 300 meters and if so I wonder if their standards are harder or easier?

[This message has been edited by khopdog (edited July 16, 1999).]

[Necron99]

If you really want a firearm that fires .223 and is a little more ergonomic than the basic AK, but are extremely reliable you have three excellent options: FNC, Galil, and HK93. My problem goes back to the .223, I prefer the 7.62x39 round for the simple reason of tactical penetration under 300 meters. Neither of these rounds is consistently effective beyond 300 to 400 meters. I've got several friends that are or were in the Marine Corps, and they have all been brainwashed into how great it is to be able to hit a full sized silouhette at 500 meters with an M16. However they are shooting in ideal conditions, no wind, no return fire, target not moving or taking cover, from a sandbag rest in a trench. At 500 meters, I'll take a .308 with a scope, because at least it will have over 1,000 foot pounds of energy vs. around 450 for a .223 and around 520 for 7.62x39 . A 10 mph crosswind will drift the .223(62 gr fmjbt, Note:M193 55gr will drift more than this figure) 3.7" at 200 yards, 16.3" at 400 yards, 41.3" at 600 yards (don't have data for 300 or 500 yards). The AK round drift in a 10mph crosswind at 200 yards 6.4", at 300 yards 15.2", at 400 yards is 28.7", at 500 yards is 47.3" . So yes the .223 bucks a crosswind better, but both these figures at 400 yards and beyond indicate that without proper compensation, even aimed fire in this condition will miss target. The accuracy issue is still largely academic, have you ever tried to spot a concealed man at 300 meters in camouflage? If he isn't moving and you don't where/what you are looking for, you probably won't see him, even at 100 meters. In heavy brush it's tough to spot exactly where people firing at you are even at 100 meters, that's what artillery, airstrikes, full auto grenade launchers, machineguns etc... are for(at least from a military perspective). If you want a down and dirty assault rifle made to engage targets under 300 meters go AK, HK, FNC or even AR if you must, if you want a long range precision rifle that also has some short range "firepower factor" (including excellent tactical penetration) go with a .308 (Galil, HK, M14, FAL), all of these are effective tools out to 800-1000 meters with the right optics and shooting conditions. As far as the Russians, the reason they switched to 5.45x39 in the late 70's was because it and the .223 have flatter trajectories, they were impressed with the wound ballistics of the .223(M193) and weight considerations. The Russian military 5.45x39 (M74)is a composite bullet similiar in concept to the SS109 specifically designed to upset balance and tumble quickly on impact. It also has a small steel penetrator. Afghanistan wound reports show that the M74 was indeed a deadly round moreso than its predecessor, the 7.62x39(M43) round. Also .223 and 5.45x39 are lighter rounds so each soldier can carry more rounds than with .308 or 7.62x39. Once again military units have more tools in their belt. If they've got a problem with someone bunkered up in a house they'll just use a 40mm grenade launcher or an RPG-7 on the house, whatever is handy in that nationality's arnsenal of infantry weapons. That's the best way to get around the issue of tactical penetration. However I don't initially have those at my disposal in a SHTF scenario. On an interesting sidenote, several years ago a bike gang dispute in Denmark was partially settled when one chapter used a stolen Swedish wireguided anti-tank missile on their enemy's safehouse.

[This message has been edited by Necron99 (edited July 17, 1999).]

[Destroyer]

Whew! Don't mess with Danish bikers!.... Man.
Of course Necron99 has a damn good point about the penetration issue. The 7.62x39mm will go through 36" of sandbags and still hit things behind it. The 5.56mm only wishes it could do that. (To anybody that thinks I'm B.S.ing: That's a standard demonstration at Army bootcamp.)

[Edmund Rowe]

M-16 vs. Klatch:

I think a good rifleman ought to be able to use either one well, and understand the limitations of each design in all the calibers they come in. Brief outline of some high/low points of each:

Eugene Stoner's AR:
-Can be had in .223, 7.62x39, and 7.62 NATO
(AR-10 for the last)
-accurate, maybe more so than need be
-complicated design. Well broken in guns seem to function fine, but lots of little widgets in there.
-Can be had in very light or very heavy versions.
-Tons of accessories for all occaisions
-Very well placed controls (for right handers)

Mikhail Kalashnikov's AK:
-Can be had in 7.62x39, .223, 5.45xsomething, and some others maybe (anyone seen the 12 gauge in stores yet?)
-Utterly reliable
-Inexpensive
-noisy selector
-tough
-forged receiver models heavier than stamped steel receiver models.

Regarding .223 vs 7.62x39, sometimes you want one, sometimes the other.

.223 doesn't penetrate much. Sometimes that is desirable. If the bad guy is in line with the neighbor's house, you don't want to be worried about the shot going through the bad guy, into his house, wounding his kid, then spend years in court.

Now, for those tree-trunk busting days, 7.62x39 or better yet 7.62 NATO is a Good Thing (tm) to have.

Edmund

[Bryant]

M-16's jam, AK's don't and besides an AK will put bigger holes in things.

[khopdog]

A simple and direct way to put it Bryant.

[Destroyer]

Yeah, I like the way Braynt put it. Direct and to the point-- the way the AK is.

[John B]

In the previous threads there mentions of AK varients in 223 but how would you classify a Daewoo Dr200?

Is it an AK variant because of the gas system or is it am M16 variant because of the lower components?

[Destroyer]

The Daewoo falls into the "neither" catagory. They stole so many ideas to make it that it's its own gun. IMHO it should be in the "impossible to find parts for" catagory. http://www.ak-47.net/akcgi/wink.gif

[saleen]

I actually had the opportunity to make just such a choice while serving in Desert Storm as a tank crewman. Each tank had four crewmen and only one rifle. Rather than argue over who got the M-16, I quickly liberated a Romanian AKM with a folding stock from one of the several groups of surrendering Iraqi soldiers. When the terrain is hostile, there is just no equal to the AK. It will work all the time under any conditions while requiring little or no maintenance. I will agree that the AR system's ergonomics are better, but that's about it.

When it absolutely positively has to work every time, choose the AK-47. ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!


Saleen

[raven]

Yeah, AK system over Colt's infantry rifle? No question, AK. But I'm having doubts, having bought an AK-74, whether I made the right choice. I just finished reading 'Black Hawk Down', and the American soldiers seemed to have problems killing their Somali enemies with the .223 bullet. This might be attributed to the fact that they were using 'green-tipped' armor-piercing rounds that create very small tissue wounds. The Rangers and Delta-Force guys had to just about empty a clip into a skinny Somali to put him down. One of the Delta guys carried an M-14, and didn't have this problem. One hit, and the target was down.

In short, this might be a case for the Ak-47 over the AR-15 AND the AK-74.

[khopdog]

I own a 7.62 and a 5.45 AK and firing them both at the range I notice that the 5.45 doesn't do alot of damage to the ground when the bullets hit the backstop compared to the 7.62 which will dig you a foxhole. I fired the 5.45 into about a inch wide piece of wood and it blew the entire backside of the wood out! I think the 7.62 will give a consitent performance everytime while the smaller round will give you a wider range of possibilities from the utterly disappointing to the outstanding. The 5.45 round is only good against soft targets with no cover because the bullets are unstable in flight.

[Edmund Rowe]

I just finished reading a story of a USMC grunt in the 'Nam ("A Sniper in the Arizona, by something Culbertson) which included their unit's change from the M-14 to the M-16 (nobody happy about that in his unit).

I don't want to be hit with either, but I think 7.62mm NATO is a lot more powerful than 7.62x39. I think the Blackhawk Down story is a good case for 7.62 NATO or heftier in urban fighting with lots of hard cover for everyone. I dunno if the same applies to 7.62 Russky. Anyone know how well 7.62x39 punches through adobe or brick compared to 7.62 NATO?

The Culbertson story also describes if they wanted to with the M-14s, they'd engage the bad guys attacking one of their outposts up to a mile away. Not saying they'd expect hits every time, but they could send a lot of lead out there and expect good wounds on anyone hit by the bullet rain. They didn't even bother trying the "shoot everything on the north approach to the recon outpost at 1 mile range" with the M-16.

Edmund

[Heavy Metal]

They are not that unstable in flight. The Army changed the twist back in the mid 60's from 1-12 to 1-14. The purpose for the M-16's terminal effect has more to do with the bullet construction. If the bullet was unstable in flight, It would cut an oval instead of a round hole in a paper target. As far as the blanket statement made above that M-16's jam and AK'd do not, well, as with most blanket statements, it's just not that simple. I have shot literally tens of thousands of rounds through M-16 series weapons and Kalashnikov series weapons and now understand both systems to the point of where I have moved from the art into the science phase.

I have had AK's misfeed, I.E. JAM! I swear, I have seen lightning strike in the same place twice! In over 7,000 rounds thru kalashnikov series weapons, I have observed 2 whole malfunctions!
I have witnessed literally hundreds of thousand of rounds sent downrange by M-16 series weapons in addition to launching in excess of an estimated minimum of 20,000 rounds of 5.56 personally. I was an armorer for Uncle Sugar and got to play on many ranges because of it. I also got to diliberately abuse the weapons to see what they would take.

My Observations:

1.) The AK is an easier weapon to manufacture, therefore, you are less likely to get a bad one from the factory. This is not so much a problem with the M-16 if it is an FN or Colt manufacter. AR's particuarly Kit guns are notorious for sub standard assembly and parts. Kit built AK's are almost non-existant. Once an bad AR is fixed by a compitant gunsmith, they tend to work fine for a very long time. I picked up a poorly assembled(By Century Arms noless) AR Clone real cheap. It had lots of problems. I fixed them all and now have a rifle which has gone 1,057 rounds with ZERO malfunctions. I have other Colt AR's that have worked malfunction free out of the box. Still, I will easily give ease of manfucture to the Kalishnikov.
Winner:AK
2.) Magazines-The AK mags are incredibly robust---and heavy. AR mags tend to be much lighter and and more fragile. This is without a question in my mind the reason for most of the kalishnikov's reputation for reliability. 99% of all M-16 series malfunctions I have witnessed have been magazine related. There are a lot of bad magazines circulating in AR land and poor commercial copies by USA mags and company do not help. I have found that late production USGI mags with the Green Anti-Tip followers and Israeli Orlite mags to function with excellent reliability with a little TLC. This round goes to the AK.

3.) Tolerance to environmental fouling. The AK wins this one but not by as much as most people think. I have seen the M-16 work very dirty and unless you leave the dust cover open with the bolt locked to the rear, it is not easy to shove stuff into the action. Most of you would be truly suprised how much stuff can be put into the M-16's guts and still have it function. If you keep the dust cover shut and a magazine in the mag well, you will be able to prevent many problems. The M-16 is still considered VERY RELIABLE in this catagory and beats other older design such as the FN-FAL, M-14 and M-1 Garand by a considerable margin. For Cryin out loud! The Israeli's use it in greater numbers than the Galil! Winner:Kalashnikov

4) Human engineering and accuracy. No contest, the M-16 walks away with this one!
Winner:M-16

5) Terminal Effect. When limiting yourself to Ball, the M-16 produces a much nastier wound in a human sized animal than a .30 cal AK. This have been extensivly documented and verified with testing. I will add a link to this thread in about a week that explains this in detail. When using commercial soft points in medium game, the AK wins.
Winner:Military Environment, M-16
Civilian Environment, AK-47.
(Not considering the AK-74 or other AK calibers)
6.) Durability and longevity. I will say the Kalasnikov here but be aware that most of the "filmsy" features on the M-16A1 was fixed on the A2 variant. In my opinion, the M-16 uses higher grade steel in it's moving parts. Bushmaster has a lower reciever used for testing uppers that they estimate has over 250,000 rounds on it. The only manitance was to blow it out with a compressor once a week and hose it with WD-40(which is crap for guns). Most of the original parts are still in that lower.
Winner:AK by a very slim margin.

Conclusions: It's a pretty even draw overall with no clear cut winner. Both are EXCELLENT rifles, albiet for differing reasons. I have reached my conclusions based on personal observantion and expirences, rejecting conjecture and heresay, trying to apply what little I know of Scientific Methodology.

My personal pic for a bug out gun? A CAR-15 with an M-4 upper, some very carefully chosen USGI mags with green followers and Tetra for my gun care products. Would I feel undergunned if all I could get is an AK? Absolutely not! It is the skill of the user which will be the ultimate determining factor in the outcome.

H.M.

[Destroyer]

H.M. mixed up the 1-14 to 1-12 thing. I'm sure he knows it, probably typed too fast.
He also brought up a good point about mags. The AR's biggest weak point is it's magazine. And good AR mags can be hard to find for us civis (and expensive!). The AK will even work with the crappy USA brand mags. I feel this gives it an edge for civilians that don't have really deep pockets (of course the rifles generally cost less too).

[Heavy Metal]

Thanks for catching that Destroyer. My Bad! Proofed it twice and still missed it.

The URL on wound ballastics I promised above.
VERY INFORMATIVE!: http://www.fen.baynet.de/norbert.arnoldi/army/wound.html

[khopdog]

I agree with the magazine statements. M16 magazines suck and are the biggest problem with reliability. You can just pick up the magazine and tell it's cheap. AK mags on the other hand are solid. What I meant by unstable in flight is that after it strikes a target the bullet goes all over the place. Hitting paper it will still make a round hole but if you put some depth behind it the small bullet will rip it up. As far as which round is better the russians were so impressed with the M16 ballistics in Vietnam that they change to the 5.45mm round because of it. I think I would prefer the 7.62mm round simply because in a firefight most people are going to be in cover and the small bullet is too unreliable for that. Does anyone know why the russians use steel cases instead of brass. I have read that because steel is stronger than brass it can cause inconsistent chamber pressures because the casing will not expand to the size of the chamber during firing. This can lead to inconsistent chamber pressure ie velocity ie accuracy. Anybody heard anything on that.

[Destroyer]

I think the Ruskies use steel because it's cheaper than brass.

[Garth Odinson]

Having read some of the posts herein, I have to agree, the AK action is the best their is.

I was awarded a Purple Heart due to the unreliability of the M-16 I carried. While I was performing SPORT, an El Salvadoran Communist Guerilla shot me with his very reliable AK-47.

Also, read why the Israelis went to the AK action for the Galil. They put the AK through some tests that were amazing in the extreme.

[Packrat]

Destroyer, the reason the Russians (and others) use steel cases is less cost than resources. Brass requires copper; steel (iron) is one of the most available materials on Earth. That is why they used the steel core in the original ball ammunition. If you section the bullet, you see that there is just a thin layer of lead in the bullet. This allows the jacket to deform slightly to fit the bore.

I have given the problem of distance shooting some thought in a SHTF situation. If someone is more than 50 yds away, I'm staying hidden. I will only shoot if it looks like they're paying a visit. I don't want to call attention to my group. As far as using parts, ammunition, etc. from the opposition, if yoiu can get these, you can get the guns. You should know how to use the opposition's weapons, but don't let their choice force you into something you don't want if you can help it.

As far as penetration goes, I had no idea the 7.62x39 would penetrate 36" of sand, but it will punch through concrete blocks like they aren't there, and an automobile body is like tissue paper. I wouldn't hesitate to shoot at someone in an automobile -- the steel door posts won't even do much. Except for the engine, the targets might as well be in the open.

I'll keep my AK for last-ditch defense. I know and trust it. (P.S. I've had 3 failures to feed in 6000 rnds, but only because I left a patch in the gas port. I had one lot of re-bulleted ammo that gave me about 1% failures, but that's the only problem. I assume the ammo [79 headstamp] was stored poorly. It fired on the second try.)

------------------
Packrat

[VonBurianx]

I'll take the ak based entirely on reliability. Having been in the infantry I have seen how grunts treat thier weapons and feel the ak's robust quality is more suited to that role. In addition when was the last time you saw a clean battlefield? Finally I favor the ak because I'd hate to have a jam when I needed a live round.

[Bryant]

Ak's look better to, exspecially the Krinkov's with folding stocks, grenade launchers and Russian nightscopes, God I would love to have one in Romanian select fire, Auto, Burst, Semi, and safe.

[Swiss one]

The M16 has the better sights ( doesn´t help that your AK never jams but you´re not able to hit the target due the lousy sights )

Don´t missunderstand me..I love my AK47/AKM´s ( but I also love my SIG 550, Ak74´s, AUG 77, RPK, M14, L1A1, my M1´s and my C7 http://www.ak-47.net/akcgi/wink.gif

The best mix in my opinion is the South African Vector R5 ( or LM5 for the semi one )
They are reliable as an AK with the better sights than an M16...

[Tomac]

Swiss One, I agree with you about the AK's sights. That's why my SLR-95s both have Cobra collimator sights. *Much* better!...
Tomac

[GUTT]

i agree about jamming ,but the m16 a2 is a stout weapon ! i have seen marine corps di's throw them at rucs and smash them off concrete ,down stairs ,in the dirt , and off obsticles. they still qual high after years of abuse.

[XM-177]

I have seen M-16A2's go through tons of abuse - the M16 is not inferior in any way to the AK. In the NATO trials, the M16A2 outqualified everything else fielded by NATO. The reason for the AK-47's reliability is the huge bolt carrier that will feed just about anything. Reliability aside (and my AR's are quite reliable), I can pick up just about any AR and outshoot the best AK-47 around. Flat trajectory of 556MM gives it a serious edge at long range. Maybe it doesn't have terminal ballistics - but if I wanted terminal ballistics I would use a true DEADLY round - 7.62 NATO. Being a member of the "One Shot, One Kill" school of thought I will always opt for an AR15/M16 or a 7.62MM sniper rifle. And I KNOW I will always be able to buy mags, spare parts, barrels, etc. for my AR's - no import bans. Unless I move to a third world hellhole where AK's are everywhere, I'll stick with the innovative genius of Eugene Stoner and his excellent design.

[Cogito Ergo Zoom]

XM-177,

I have seen this "flat trajectory" argument used elsewhere and I would like to address it if I may.

First, I would assert that the difference in trajectory is not that significant at relevant ranges. With both rifles sighted in at 3 inches high at 200 yards, the 5.56 SS109 ammo is 2 inches high at 100 yards, 3 inches high at 200 yards, and one inch low at 300 yards. With the 7.62x39 the same ranges are 3 inches high, 3 inches high, and 5 inches low.

For combat conditions both cartridges will hit within the vital zone of a human if the shooter holds dead on center of mass out to 300 yards.

If however the person doing the shooting knows that the range is 300 yards, then holding a little high, or changing their sights for the range will do the trick just as much as shooting a flatter cartridge.

Now, how much energy does each cartridge have at 300 yards? The SS109 has 630 ft-lbs, whereas the 7.62x39 123 grain has 800 ft-lbs. The velocities are 2135 and 1700 fps respectively.

Dr. Fackler has stated that:

"Bullet mass and bullet striking velocity establish a bullet's potential; they set the limit on the tissue disruption it can produce. Bullet shape and construction determine how much of this potential is actually used to disrupt tissue; they are the major determinants of bullet effect."

The 7.62x39 has greater mass, greater diameter and greater sectional density of the projectile, 20 percent less velocity and 20 percent greater energy.

The 5.56x45 has less than half the mass, a smaller diameter, less sectional density, and only about 20 percent greater velocity, while it has 20 percent less energy.

If a person took Dr. Fackler's statement by itself they might argue for the greater velocity of the 5.56x45 - except they would be ignoring Fackler's other work that shows that beyond 150-200 yards the 5.56 SS109 stops showing its remarkable fragmentation and acts like a solid.

Now both cartridges can be loaded with "hunting" projectiles that expand out to 300 yards, but when it comes to those loads, I would assert that the 7.62x39 projectile will have the advantage because its greater mass/sectional density/diameter will result in a larger final diameter with deeper penetration.

FWIW,
LCB

[mrak1289x]

AK is more reliable when it's extremely dirty, and the 7.62x39mm ammo has better penetration in urban settings. AK gets my vote.

[BigMeanGreen]

We all have our favorites. Some of us Just won't go without the ole relable AK. While others love their AR's. What ever you shoot Have fun and shoot safe.

[tmoon]

In a word, AR-15. Now, I know that this will generate a little heat on the forum, but isn't that what all the fun of this is about?

Why the AR in a SHTF, TEOTWAWKI, (your acronym here) situation? Most individuals will be shooting semi-auto firearms in an urban area with max ranges ~200 meters. That being said, the first person to make a center of mass hit will prevail. This is where the AR's superior sighting system, ergonomics and trigger pull come together as the ideal practical rifle. Admittedly, you don't need sub-MOA accuracy, just be able to put the projectile in a 11" diameter circle at whatever range, but sight alignment, sight picture, off-safe, and trigger press is quicker with an AR than an AK.

All this stuff about penetration and cover is interesting for sure in a suppressive fire situation, but with limited ammo and semi-auto firearms, pray-spray tactics will be of little use. As to terminal ballistics, I think all will agree that shot placement is the most important part of cartridge effectiveness.

As far as maintenance, although it's touted as the hands down winner for reliability, I don't think the spare parts are as available as the AR system, at least in the United States. Can you name two neighborhood businesses that stocks replacement AK springs or firing pins? What does your local LEO use as a practical carbine? What is the predominant "hi-cap" rifle that you would encounter in your locale? In some places, it could be a Marlin 30-30 lever rifle, but in most places in the US, it'll be an AR.

Cleaning requirements are probably overemphasized. I've gone through a case of PMC before cleaning my AR without any malfunctions. Do you think you will shoot a thousand rounds before you have enough downtime to clean your firearm?

I love my 7 pound "Mattel Rifle." This is my rifle. There are many like it, but this one is mine!

PS. All that aside, I still may end up picking up one of them SAR-1 "Commie junk guns" before SB23 rolls around, just to get comfy with it.

PPS. Where can I get decent aftermarket peep sights for the thing?

------------------
--
The FAL Diaries (http://tmoon.freeshell.org)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
"Who watches the watchmen?"
-Juvenal, Satires, VI, 347

[Lisl Auman]

I don't know if that fackler guy did research on the ak74 round. The ballistics tests I've seen on it does make it better than the 7.62ak due to it tumbling at about 4 inches rather than at the 9 (I'm forgot) inches of the ak. Unlike the 5.56, there is no fragmentation of the bullet. This I'd bet is due more to bullet construction rather than caliber characteristics.
There is on 7.62ak round that does tumble at 4 inches. I believe it's the Yugoslavian.



------------------
Lisl Auman, political prisoner in the US

[David Speight]

All I know is that one of my relitives that was in Vietnam picked up an AK-47 that was next to the remains of its owner (it had been sitting out in the open for at least two months in the jungle) and it fired flawlessly.
He likes the Ak-47 better, now I do know they have fixed some of the problems with the M16 since Vietnam, but still it can't take the abuse an AK-47 can.
My pick as well, the AK!

[Lisl Auman]

Chun K, 56
Is there a video on the B of A, LA shootout? Also, as for your getting deer with the 7.62x39, it’s basically the same as a 30-30. And I’d bet that cartridge has gotten more deer than any other, even vehicles (roadkill). I’d be hesitant to use it on elk though.

Raven,
I’d bet that delta guy w/the m14 had it for sniping. Thus, better optics. And better shooting (read: fire discipline).

Gutt,
When I was in the corps, we called them packs. When I was in the army, we called them rucks. Are you sure you got your branches right?


For penetration of the 109 in ar’s, one must remember, while they do penetrate better than the 55gr fmj, there is considerable deflection. That means shooting someone through a windshield doesn’t guarantee a hit.

Proverbs: 27:7



------------------
Lisl Auman, political prisoner in the US

[Lisl Auman]

Garth,
So you were in El Salvador. Hmmmm. That gent that shot you, how did you know he was a communist? Was it due to who gave him his weapon? Curious. Think back to when our country was a colony of England. In our fight for Independence, your logic would dictate that our militias in this country were Monacharists, due to our weapons given to us by the king of France? That makes about as much sense as reagan saying countries “export revolution” by shipping arms. There has to be a reason for an uprising by the people. And if one side sends weapons (some for testing) and training to enforce the tyrannical status quo, while another side sends doctors, teachers, and provides trainers in weaponry for it's farmers, who wins the "hearts and minds"???

Course, maybe I misunderstood the situation down there. Could you enlighten me? Why did the army smear mud on the license plates of their green suburbans? Everyone knew they were the army (death squad?) So why would they smear mud across the front and rear license plates in order to avoid having that particular vehicle be identified. Could it be so that the people inside could not be individually identified? If so, why? Rape by soldiers was a common practice. So was murder. Come to think of it, that place sort of smelled of death, enough to make one spit. But one could never quite get that taste out, could they?

Do you ever get the feeling “we” were just there to prevent some populism from spreading throughout the region? Popular nationalism is not good for Del Monte or Dole. Cheap Guatamalan/Honduran shirts. And look at nowadays, NAFTA. Yes, there were north americans fighting on both sides. But you knew that. Didn’t spooky cover you good enough?

Will you now defend those same economic interests in this country’s internal struggle? Who’s side will you be on? If you will now be on ours, then you wasted your time down there. So sorry. What was that seal that bit it down there, schlaufenburger? He was down there just for the action. Maybe you were too. If not, then you’re either an agent of the Fed of some sort or you’ve woken up in disbelief. If you are the prior, I have no pity or mercy on you. If you are the latter, I feel sorry for you. But we all wake up sometime. I did.

Proverbs: 27:7


------------------
Lisl Auman, political prisoner in the US



[This message has been edited by Lisl Auman (edited 12-07-1999).]

[Barking Dog]

Garth, you got the scar...........Lisl Auman got the BS.... pay him no mind.You took one for your beliefs

[Lisl Auman]

Barking Dog
>Garth, you got the scar...........Lisl >Auman got the BS....

I have the BS? How do you figure? Please enlighten me, o wise sage.

>You took one for your beliefs

So. You make it sound like that's hard. Maybe it is for you, but not for most.
If he was down there, in a carrying capacity, then he was in a special unit. He took one for his employer, not for his personal beliefs. Although I may be wrong, I'd have a hard time believing that a person could see and be involved in what was going on down there and keep the belief in "god, country, democracy, etc." It would be more likely that beliefs would be in the mission, and its objectives only. That's where training comes in. Compartmentalize the contradictions. Orders are orders. So, he did not take one for any convictions and/or beliefs. He took one for his employer.

But then again, I am full of BS, huh?
Please give me your opinion on El Salvador. And please include on what you base that. If you don't, I'd be inclined to believe you're the one that is full of bovine fecal matter. But it is OK to say what happened down there was good because of god and country, or something like that. It'll show where you come from.

Hmmm, you don't suppose that some day, some masked men will raid citizens homes and confiscate their guns? If there is resistance, well, gotta shoot them. Orders are orders, and besides, you've got to be patriotic, blindly so, don't we?

And because I'm so full of BS, I'd like to have Garth explain to me why their suburbans were so. It is OK if he believes like you. I just like to know people's thought process, or in cases like yours, lack thereof.

------------------
Proverbs 27:7
He who is full loathes honey, but to the hungry even what is bitter tastes sweet.

[This message has been edited by Lisl Auman (edited 12-08-1999).]

[BillB]

First Post, Nice Board!
I've shot more AK than AR, but both are terrific. I think the 7.62X39 hits harder, the 5.56 is easier to control in rapid aimed fire, the ergonomics of the AR are easier on the hands and controls are simpler. But I still like the AK's, not necessarily better, just different. "You say to-may-to, I say to-mah-to". It IS great to live in this country where we can have these weapons (Thank you GOD! Not some politician!)and this discussion. I think of it this way: If "it" hits the fan my shorty AR is set to go next to the bedpost, my AK's (mostly Bulgarian) are readily close by with East German mags and Russian ammo. Either way you choose, you can't go wrong. By the way: I went to Thunder Ranch for their Urban Rifle course (awesome!) with a new AR and new mags (Thermold & USGI), shot 1400 rounds of Russian 62 gr. 5.56mm with NOT ONE Malfunction or misfire! There was one guy with a MAK-90 (He didn't have much shooting experience) there who needed constant attention to keep his rifle together. Mostly his fault, not the MAK-90's.
I saw some video on the network news about a year ago and several of the Palestinian Authority Police (AK armed) were having a shootout with the Israeli's, you could tell the Palestinians had GOOD SKILLS with their AK's, these guys were good! Would I want them shooting at me? NO WAY!
Great Board.

[Barking Dog]

Lisl Auman, come away from the window....no ones wathcing you, wipe the slobber from the corner of your mouth and take your medication

[Edmund Rowe]

AK or M-16? Whichever I had with me loaded and ready at the time. I can use either one.

Edmund

[This message has been edited by Edmund Rowe (edited 12-10-1999).]

[Gary]

Good writeup Heavy Metal.

------------------

[austral34]

O.K. the military and the law use the ar-15 type rifles and 5.56 ammo. When you are behind enemy lines and have no meens for resupply (like gun parts and ammo). The only thing you can do is pick up there weapons by stealing or "other means" and continue the fight. So it would be wise to know how to be able to operate your enemys weapons efectivly...

[Packrat]

Re: know your enemy's guns: If any of you are familiar with small Arms of the World, you might be interested to know that it developed from a book entitles "A Military Manual of Small Arms", which was written for forward Ordnance officers so they could instruct troops on use of captured military firearms. Many of the entries and images are identical with the original book (pub. in 1944).

------------------
Packrat

[Chun Kwong 56]

The North Hollywood Shoot-0ut vidieo is available from MVP Home Entertainment,phone#1-800-637-3555,try your local rental store first.

[stinkin' Lincoln]

I admit to not being up to snuff on balistics, but I'm left wondering what happens when you throw kevlar into the mix... the AK will clearly go through cars and concrete... and both the .223 and the .762 x 39 will make quick work of a kevlar vest, but what happens to the path/injury infliction after passing through a vest? (or is that like asking what happens after passing through a slice of bread? I don't know)

thanks,
sl

------------------
if triangles had a god, it'd have three sides...

[AMHsix]

My 2 cents worth...

I have a Colt Match Target Lightweight(.223Rem), and an Arsenal SLR-95MB(7.62S).

I've shot both, with out cleaning, to the point of failure to function(bolt unable to move properly/easily). The SLR-95 was in the 480 rounds range and the Colt in the 510 rounds area, before jamming.

Also shooting at a the "hollow" areas of cinder blocks, about 30 feet away, both only went half way through the blocks. I believe I was shooting Winchester 55gr FMJ in the Colt, and some imported Russian hollow points in the SLR-95.

Based on these two findings, I find them both about equal. Though these "tests" weren't at all scientifically done, it's just something I know firsthand about my rifles.

I personally like the AR-15(16" barrel) style rifle better, based on feel/balance/weight/operation.

-Someone said that the sights were higher on AR-15 the AK-47, they are, but only by a 1/2 inch. 3" over the barrel center for the AK, and 3.5" for the AR-15. I don't feel that is much of a difference for close quarter combat, but I could be wrong.

[KurtsKustom]

I build both, use both!
Kurt V. Wala
Kurt's Kustom Firearms www.kurtkustom.qpg.com (http://www.kurtkustom.qpg.com)

[KurtsKustom]

I build both, shoot both, USE both !
Kurt V. Wala
Kurt's Kustom Firearms www.kurtkustom.qpg.com/ (http://www.kurtkustom.qpg.com/)

------------------
Kurt V. Wala
Kurt's Kustom Firearms
www.kurtkustom.qpg.com/

[SD70MAC]

I'd primarilly stick with the AR15 type weapon, too. Specifically one of my pre-ban Colts with an M4 upper and 4 position stock. I've also gone well over 2,000 rounds before cleaning with no malfunctions. Living here in the Pacific Northwest affords me the opportunity to shoot in the rain as well as exposing the ARs to the elements that result from said rain and they have experienced no reliability problems nor suffered any ill effects from doing so. The system AR15/M16 is reliable with only basic maintainence. I also periodically function check my mags to be sure they are reliable as well. I've noticed that the M16 style sights are easier for me to use in low light, too. Those crappy AK sights disappear a lot faster in less than ideal lighting, further reducing it's already marginal accuracy. Regarding the previous talk about 400-500 yard shots, with a properly sighted in AR15 it is at least an option, this coming from someone who has scored many a hit from the 600 yard line with an issue M16A2. I personally think that attempting such with a typical AK would only serve to mark your position.

I also bought a pair of MAK90s with which to gain familiarity of the AK system as well as to back up the ARs, although serving in that capacity one has less than 1000 rounds through it and the other is still NIB. They were well worth the $200 apiece I paid for them but nowhere near the $400-$500 going prices nowadays, in my hunble opinion.

[PRE BAN]

I hate to get sucked into posting a reply to such an old post but I can't resist.
First let me state that I will speak only from experience. I am not a scientist nor do I play one on T.V.
Also I am not going to say which I would prefer but let you figure it out by imagining yourself in these situations.
SITUATION 1:
you are on patroll in an urban setting with civillians (friendly) all around you trying to smoke out snipers (who buy the way could be using either of these rifles). Your squad leader tells you to keep your weapon on safe and place it on fire only when ready to shoot a target to avoid an accidental shooting of the civilians.....Which do you prefer?
SITUATION 2:
You are lying in ambush of an enemy patrol. The patrol advances and your squad opens fire. You quickly empty a thirty rnd mag. Now, with your eyes still on the target, rifle sholdered ready for action, drop the empty mag and replace it with another and continue to fire. Do not forget to keep your eyes on the target. And try to hurry because you want to keep the enemy supressed as much as possible.... which do you prefer?
SITUATION 3:
you are covering your buddy as he bounds back to take cover. You have taken cover behind a fallen tree and are in the prone position. As your mag empties, quickly roll onto your back, change mags and continue to lay down supressive fire. If you can,stay on your stomach(quickly!!!!!!I said)which do you prefer?
SITUATION 4:
You are ordered to gather as much ammo and extra mags along with supplies that you will need to sustain yourself for an extended period of time, and move out on about a 30 mile march where you are to set up a observation post and report enemy activity... which do you prefer?
You might be thinking that these situations do not apply to a real SHTF situation. But I argue that they will. Especially if "We" (those with AR's and AK's), hope to win back our great countries freedom.
Which ever you choose, I hope for all our sake, but especially yours, that you can function quickly in all these situations. Don't lie to yourself either. It might just get you killed one day.
Buy the way I have both of the above mentioned weapons.
just my .02 worth.
PRE BAN