It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

AR 15 or AK?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 11:08 PM
link   
hey there.... i was just wondering... whats better? the AK series? or the AR 15 series??? i dont really want to know whats better i just want to know their ups and downs and what would be ur weapon of choice... and if anybody can get any charts like weight range n stuff for 2 guns to compare then plzz post em

srry if this has been brought up b4




posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 11:29 PM
link   
I don't have any specific data on me but I know a few things I hear over and over again.

Apparently AR-15's are more on the accurate side, along with having less recoil. The other chief advantage is lighter ammo seing as it's 5.56 compared to 7.62.

The AK's advantage mainly is reliability along with slightly more punch per bullet. That and sturdy construction mean you can actually use the butt as a bludgeon in a pinch.

Just to note I'm not too sure but I believe the AK-101 (the latest AK) use's 5.56 ammunition. That of course gives it a few more advantages and a few more disadvantages shared by the AR-15.



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 11:32 PM
link   
I have both.
The AR-15 is much more accurate, and the ammo has more penetration, but as cyberdude pointed out, you could butt-stroke a rhino down to its knees with the AK. If the spring, for example, breaks, the average Joe could fabricate a do-able replacement with field expediance.
Both are good. I'll not sell either!



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 11:56 PM
link   
I would tend to agree on both points by cyberdude78 and Thomas Crowne, with the added note that the quality of the AK will also depend on the maker.

For instance, I understand that the Chinese made AK is not quite as reliable as some others.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 12:00 AM
link   
hah... nice do the have a range diference??? cuz i heard that the AR 15 series is for medium range only and that its not that great... (heard if from my friends... dont know what to believe) and i fired both a M4 and a AK 47 i coulnt really tell the diference in the kick



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 12:20 AM
link   
AK sucks as a battle rifle.

The buttstock is too short, the recoil is excessive due partly to poor ergonomics. All steel and wood construction makes it much heavier than need be. Steel magazines, while more robust than aluminum or polymer, add too much weight to the Soldiers basic load. Accuracy plain sucks, due to the barrel assembly being simply attached off-set to the lower receiver, rather than designed as an integral in-line part, and crude to rudimentary sights. The ammo is purposely designed as a severe wedge, which makes extraction very sure and simple. However, the design does not make for an accurate round, as full support is not given it by the chamber (a wedge always wants to get away) during the tremendous pressures of firing.

Mikhael designed the AK to be easily serviced and maintained by ignorant and uneducated peasants, who rarely fired any weapon prior to conscript military service. Yes, the weapon is reliable, but at the cost of low power, limited useful range of 300m maximum, and mediocre-at-best accuracy.

Contrast with the AR/M16 series. Interchangeable buttstock assemblies, or adjustable buttstock assemblies. Steel and aluminum construction, gives great strength while keeping over-all weight down. Aluminum magazines, while perhaps less robust, simple training keeps them safely in the pouches until needed. Their lightweight enables a Soldier to carry a larger basic load. The barrel is torqued as part of the upper receiver, making it one whole unit along with the excellent fully adjustable sights. The near perfect in-line ergonomics, by design, cuts felt recoil to a minimum. 5.56mm ammo is much more straight walled, greatly decreasing the rearward thrust by allowing more of the case to expand against the chamber walls.

Stoner knew that the US Soldier is much better trained and motivated, and would have no trouble maintaining a more complex weapon. High powered (despite the median round), easy recoiling, and wonderfully accurate out to 500m. Theoretically less reliable, but proper maintenance keeps it running in all environments. Some operational improvements could be easily innitiated, but the current design is battle tested, and very well received by armed forces the world over.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 12:30 AM
link   
Oh, were we talking about weapons to be used in a military unit? What Army said is true, except recoil. I don't find a bit of difference in the recoil, and I assure you, I'm no Sgt. Rock (anymore
)



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 01:08 AM
link   
TC, could you expand a little more on the penetration issues you talked about? I am curious as to what type ammo was used to test this, as in bullet types, weights, etc. I would assume, from experiences and ballistics tables, that if using similar solid bullets in both you would get better penetration at close range from the .223 but should get better penetration at longer ranges from the 7.62x39. it would seem the heavier bullet would retain more energy and velocity at greater distances given its preferred ballistic coeffecient.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 01:16 AM
link   
The kick being negligably different is a new one on me.

I haven't fired either weapon, I'll say that right now.

I have fired the F89 Austeyr and I couldn't feel any kick there.
My dad used to have a Chinsese knock off of the Siminov SKS. It's not an AK, that's understood, but I distinctly saw the thing kick when he used it. I've said it before but, he hated the thing. Being Chinese the accuracy sucked, he said "You couldn't hit the broad side a barn from the inside with this thing". He traded it on a Mk 2 1918 Lee Enfield. (irrelevant, I know!)

I believe that the Valmet AK is a very sweet weapon indeed. Finnish build quality negates all the problems with Russian/Chinese builders and all the plus points are enhanced. Czech-built AKs are also supposed to be good, too.

The AK 74 originally came in 5.45mm didn't it? The Russian move to smaller calibre following the M16's appearance in Vietnam.

I'm surprised at the 300m range. Given that the SLR/FN FAL is quoted by numerous sources as deadly at 1200m. I've spoked to guys who've hit targets (that's targets, not people) at over 1000m with them. The AK 47 is most often quoted with a deadly range of 800m, but not the accuracy to match.
The original MP5 came out with sights calibrated at 400m, on a 9mm.

From what I've read and heard (my only sources of knowledge here) I would have said the AK if you truly want to put people down and it's at 70 - 100 metres. The AR if you're going out to 300m. Neither after that. If you're humping it through the jungle then the AK. If you're in an urban setting, take your pick. If you're very well-trained and disciplined, take the AR.



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 12:49 AM
link   
The poor accuracy of a kalashnikov comes mainly from chinese Type 56 rifles, at least early models had terrible barrels and losely attached sights.

If a 7.62X39 kalashnikov is well made like the finnish Sako rk95 or the recent russian export models like Saiga, it's every bit as accurate to 300m as an AR. shooting over 300m (600m is the lethal range) is possible, but it's not useful as sighting with iron sights is hard beyond 300m. Plus i've seen several good shooters firing better results with AK based weapons than Colt AR Matches

The terminal effect of standard 7.62X39 is adequate, but new russian bullets have very early yaw cycle and decent penetration giving the old round very effective terminal performance when compared to 5.56 Nato.

And when it comes to reliability, I personaly only have large enough experience with technicaly a kalashnikov clone (rk95), but i've seen those firing 50 000 rounds and only a single jam/failure (that was due to a blank round failing to ignite)

The AR is a good desing, but i trades off too much reliability to a very small advatage in range and (allegedly, i can't confirm) accuracy.



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 12:18 PM
link   
The Ak also costs as little as $25 on the streets of the more shady countries.
Never underestimate the potency of mass production.

The AK is designed to be mass produced and never fail, which are two qualities rarely put together, and thus give it its awesome tales of service and such. Being able to recruit more men with cheaper, but still effective weapons is not something to snicker at.

Technically, 7.62/39 is overkill on the battlefield, and thus the new AR and even the AK-74 use a smaller round like the M-16, but remember, in battle, you rarely see your enemy over 500m away, and in urban combat, that drops to like 100m.
At these ranges, accuracy is nice, but having a fully automatic weapon firing full size, 7.62 rounds is very potent. Also in urban combat, the weight of the weapon doesnt matter as much, as you are not travelling far during combat.

The AK is ideally suited for untrained soldiers, as even with an accurate rifle. they would not be good shots, and probably dont carry basic military supplies. and thus the weight of the rifle is not serious, and finally, its fully auto, and in the event they do hit something, the round is large enough to do serious damage, which is assisted by its large magazine.

The AR seems to be Russia's attempt to professionalize their army more and more as the future comes along. And its probably for the best.



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 12:57 PM
link   
The AK, while lacking in some areas, is extremely versatile, and tough. You drive over it with a tank, pick it out of the mud, and continue firing. The AR, not so much. As well, the AK can use either the long or short 7.62 round. It was built loose fitting like a machine gun, or with even basic sniper training you can learn how to stiffen it up for sniper use. Disadvantage of the AK is it will kill easily with the larger round. Th AR`s smaller round goes in and bounces around, seriously wounding the person, wich then ties up troops in giving aid to the soldier, and moving off the line, wich results in a smaller battle, and makes it easier to push the enemy back. Small patrol, the AK, main battle, AR.



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 01:22 PM
link   
is it limited to the old ak 47 and the ar 15, or the new modifications on the weapons. i pick the ak 103 which combines some American made products onto the ak 47 descendant.



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 03:05 PM
link   
To me, the only thing the AK has over the AR-15, is possibly better reliability, other than that, performance on the AR-15 is way better.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Best of both Worlds!

world.guns.ru...

Choice of calibres ( inc 7.62 NATO !!
)

Go Finn!



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 12:59 AM
link   
I don't know a lot but here's what I have heard.

M16 Advantages:
Smaller lighter ammo lets you fire automatically without lots of kickback - the 5.56 mm rounds only use 50-something grains of powder!
Smaller rounds let you carry more of them.
A small round still disables someone from fighting, even if it doesn't have the knockdown power of a 7.62 mm round.

M16 Disadvantages:
As was seen in Vietnam, the gun jams. Lots of Marines have said that there were many times when they had the upper hand for a surprise attack on a Vietnamese group, but it would be ruined when 1/4 guns jammed all of a sudden.
A small round with a small amount of powder limits accuracy and killing power to 100 yards, while the AK47 was whoopin' tail from 300.

AK47 Advantages:
Big bullets really really really hurt. They use a good bit of grain, and go pretty far and have good killing power at longer ranges.
The gun uses looser specifications, and so it can take a beating, a swim, a dunk in the mud, and keeps kickin' tail.

AK47 Disadvantages:
Bigger bullets take up more space and weight more, so you can't carry as many.
Bigger bullets need more powder, and so they jerk more when you shoot them.



My vote: Neither. I vote for the new XM8 they've been working on. Sweet little package.



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 04:21 AM
link   
The discovery channel made a good programm on that issue with the constructeurs of both riffles, if U can get Ur hands on that programm all Ur questions will be anwerd



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 10:45 AM
link   
Just to clear some things up:

the AK-47/AKM and their clones use 7.62x39 ammo, it's not the full size 7.62x51mm or 7.62x54mm ammunition, the round is about as powerful as the 30-30 which I personally fired, not much kickback IMO.

Both rifles have their merrits, the AK-47 is cheap, reliable, durable, The AK owners I talked to who own Romanian AKs pretty much told me that the inaccuracy of the AK is a myth, it can shoot very well, however they are often sighted for up to 800m which is extremely optimistic.

In the US you can buy AKs for around 300 dollars minimum (WASR-10), they used to be much cheaper, but they are in large demand and the Pre-Ban features are also adding to the price tag.

The AR-15 is expensive, you could probably find them for 800 dollars minimum, they are not as reliable in combat but when you take care of it it certainly fires very well, they are more accurate.

Personally i'd go for the AK, I like the round, I like the open sights rather than the AR's Peepsights and the price tag isn't gonna break the budget either, in both ammo and the rifle it self, I also like the fact it's so DAMN easy to use


A good source for Romanian AKs is here: Romanian AK site.

Happy Shooting



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
Just to clear some things up:

the AK-47/AKM and their clones use 7.62x39 ammo, it's not the full size 7.62x51mm or 7.62x54mm ammunition, the round is about as powerful as the 30-30 which I personally fired, not much kickback IMO.

Both rifles have their merrits, the AK-47 is cheap, reliable, durable, The AK owners I talked to who own Romanian AKs pretty much told me that the inaccuracy of the AK is a myth, it can shoot very well, however they are often sighted for up to 800m which is extremely optimistic.

In the US you can buy AKs for around 300 dollars minimum (WASR-10), they used to be much cheaper, but they are in large demand and the Pre-Ban features are also adding to the price tag.

The AR-15 is expensive, you could probably find them for 800 dollars minimum, they are not as reliable in combat but when you take care of it it certainly fires very well, they are more accurate.

Personally i'd go for the AK, I like the round, I like the open sights rather than the AR's Peepsights and the price tag isn't gonna break the budget either, in both ammo and the rifle it self, I also like the fact it's so DAMN easy to use


A good source for Romanian AKs is here: Romanian AK site.

Happy Shooting


Valmet is available in 7.62 x 51 (NATO)! Best of all worlds!



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 02:01 PM
link   
Main problem with the AKs accuracy stems from the rather short sight radius when compared to the AR series. This can be sorted out with the addition of a scope. However, the 7.62 short is a slightly less stable round than the 5.56 NATO. This makes the ARs more accurate by design. Still, as the average range of a firefight on the modern battlefield is under 100m, this is a bit academic.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join