AR-15 vs AK-74

Most people like to compare the AK-47 to the AR-15, but that's actually comparing apples and oranges. The AK-47 is a much older gun, and most of the arguments against it reflect the fact that it wasn't designed to deal with the same things the AR-15/m-16 was intended to take on, like body armor. The real comparison shouldn't be made against the AK-47 at all, it should be the AK-74 vs the Ar-15. No, that's not a typo, the Russians made another gun called the AK-74. It was intended to perform the same functions as the AR-15.

AK-74

AR-15/m-16

Who's your winner? Would you ever consider a Russian made weapon that wasn't an AK-47, even if it's the AK-47's offspring?

The only thing Russian I would consider coming from the Hands of Russia would have to be Vodka..

In a day to day tactical sense?
AR-15

For survival in the wild?
AK-47

M16-longer barrell, and similar weight, but of course its all down to your personal opinion.

In my experience, they are both pretty reliable and won't let you down. I think the AR-15 has a slight edge in accuracy and the AK-74 has a slight edge in durability/reliability. But that's just my opinion. However I prefer the Mini-14 over both of them

I personally sold my AR-15 here recently and really have no desire to own anything in that family of weapons again. Why? I didn't feel like paying the upgrade money to the piston, and the standard design is just horrible. I always wondered, before owning one, how American troops could have such widespread weapon jamming problems. It didn't take many trips out with mine to learn the answer to that.

For anyone not familiar with it, the AR-15/M-16 family blows the gas directly back into the receiver group to cycle the bolt on every shot. That isn't contained away from the bolt and chamber area like the M-14, M-1 or Mini's are. Due to this, the first round fired essentially fouls the whole receiver area and it just gets dirtier from there.

If I can find an affordable rifle in the AK- family that isn't from Romania or other junk stock I am going to see how that design operates from an owner's perspective. I understand they have reliability that is just incredible and that is my top concern. A rifle can punch tacks at 500 yards, but it's a fancy club to hit people with if it jams easily.

Just a few thoughts from a former and disgruntled AR-15 owner.

The real question should never be what gun is best in a survive a SHHTF end of world sort of thing.

But Rather: What ammunition can you get readily enough to feed it?

Not to mention: Should I have to scavenge for the ammo, what type is most likely to be where and can I get it without getting killed?

Guns... blah blah blah. You need ammo or that gun is a stick or rock in your pack/or back.

That above all other questions is the most important about what gun should you have.

Yeah you load it yourself gurus have opinions on the matter too, but even then it comes down to supplies. If Johny Come Back Latte's store is closed burned down etc. and you can't get more reloading materiel you are just as trapped with a 5-18 pound stick/brick.

Of the 2 weapons the OP posted question wise, the AR stands to have the chance of having more ammunition to feed it.... in THIS country.

In the Old Soviet Block / China areas, it's the AK.
Germany/Europe , it'd be a toss up but something 7.62 based.

Depending of course IF the populations that carried it died off fast enough for you to find the armories intact.

The advantage the AR has is you can get an adapter that lets you fire 22 caliber rounds. More foods to feed it if you will.



If you have no ammo, a gun is a fancy name for rock.
And the guy with a bow and arrow / spear has more a chance of killing you than you do killing him.

But that is of course my simplistic take on it all.

M.

reply to post by Moshpet


I'm not asking about survival or SHTF scenarios. I just want to hear what you all think is the higher quality gun. The AK-74 or the AR-15?

reply to post by Evolutionsend

Well the AK-74 has the time honored gas piston like its mean older brother the AK-47.

But the M16 STILL has more accuracy because its bolt doesen't cause the whole gun to hop around. The AR does jam, but only if your not taking care of her. As far as RAW firepower goes 5.56 for the AR and the 5.45 AK are really similar, both are supersonic rounds, and suffer from tumble and if your in the tall grass/jungle good luck hitting your target



But AR-15 CAN be tricked out to meet all tactical needs, BUT in Soviet Russia they only wanted the soldier to fight and kill, so a simple rifle thats CHEAP to make was what the Reds wanted. So again what kind of rifle are you looking for.

BUT AR can come in a .308 or a 5.6 or even a 410 shotgun/rifle slug so the platform is stable for any changing requirements. So may opinion AR has a leg up

But I AM a HUGE AK fan no rifle has seen MORE action than any other in the WORLD it is a Symbol of Revolution and freedom fighting of rebels fighting for what they believe so don't sneeze at it for a second! But AR's In my opinon are the better one as a stable accurate weapon that you must care for so she can care for you.

Hope this as help

Well I'm sure you guys can tell by now. I am an AR guy. However this is not to say that I believe the AK is inferior. I believe it has it's place.

No weapon is a perfect all around weapon. But in the United States, if I had to take my chances in a SHTF situation I would take my trusty AR. Why? because you can always scavenge parts from other weapons. Not that you can't do that with the AK, but the AR is modular and parts would be easier to find.

If we're talking about the AK-74, it's just an AK with a smaller round...And it isn't any more accurate.

reply to post by merkej23

BUT in Soviet Russia

In Soviet Russia AK tricks you out.

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by merkej23

 

BUT in Soviet Russia

In Soviet Russia AK tricks you out.

edit on 29-10-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)

I walked RIGHT into that one

But I'm right, right?

reply to post by merkej23


That depends. The M16 is supposed to be a main battle rifle.

However the M4 is a multipurpose tactical firearm. While they are both essentially the same weapon, the size and weight difference, and length of the barrel means they are obviously for different applications.

You are correct to classify the AK in the sense that you did, however.

reply to post by Evolutionsend


My personal choice. M-16 / AR16

I know it a lot better than I do the AK and while I've fired both, the accuracy is better IMO on the M16.

I would also take the M16 Because, I've trained with it to the point I can strip it down day or night and half awake, and I know all the tricks to keep it functional. I still know my zero and I can pick anyone of them off the rack set it to my zero and know I can hit things consistently with it. Put a scope on it, and you can kill big and small game (squirrels etc) at range, and not worry about finding meat that survived the killing shot. (Not to mention the adapter for .22 ammunition.)

Now if I had to pick one for defending an area in combat conditions and I had a choice, M-60 or M249 SAW, for wide area suppression or killing fields / MOUT. M16 w M203 under-barrel as just multipurpose rifleman, again.A Bolt Action Scoped rifle with match quality ammo for sniping. (Or in a pinch scope on the M16.)

Pistol. Military issue M9, 9mm hollow point point or steel jacket. Again due to familiarity and training, second in that the ammo for it is -common as dirt- in America.

Now if I had to pick a handgun other than the military issue 9mm. I would take the Desert Eagle and the extra barrels/clips for it. If you have a hand gun, where you can take 2 minutes to swap the barrel, and then feed it a different clip for the different ammo.. 9mm, .357 .45 .50 and the like, the few extra pounds for the loaded clips and the other barrels.. the choice becomes that one, on the basis of practicality and 'feeding it.'

Shotgun any, really would do if you have the ammo for it, and don't have to fret past needing only 4-6 shots and a slow reload time... Semi Auto or Manuel. Single shot/double barrel meh. But If you are hunting for food and or need to stop one target at close range you can't beat one... as long as you can hit what you are aiming at.

I can't personally see a need to carry 3-4 guns though, unless I am part of a group and I need to kill any and every bit of game that comes up to feed a starving mass of people.

---------- Warning sermonising ahead. ---------------

The problem with carrying a gun (in a post apocalyptic world or not), is that if you have ready access to a gun you will try to use it to solve any 'problem' that you think needs 'violently solved' with the gun. Rather than letting your feet take you and your family out of harms way. It also paints you as a threat should anyone catch a glimpse of you 'poking around.' There is also the 'I gotta getta gun' to be secure mindset... that people have stupidly bought into, which means you might get 'jumped' by a guy with a rock who doesn't have gun so they can take your gun....

Guns in my book exist only for killing something. Hunting, is still killing; you just don't have to moralize that Bambi or his dad was going to kick your door down afterwards though....

Yeah, 'you' can say you need one for "defense," but the moment you _need_ to pick up the gun for this 'so called defense', it's not at the point of defense anymore, it boils down to simply: kill the other guy. Of which you can moralize how bad you feel about surviving it afterwards.

Defense, is about making sure you don't ever _need_ to use violence. You either beat feet, or you make it look like you are not there or that its just -too damned risky- for 'them' to dig you out and take your 'stuff'. Which is why we have houses with locks on them and fences... and cars to drive away from danger with. (AKA the modern horse.)

When the guns 'have' to come into play, it isn't defense anymore. You kill the other 'guy' because you may die or someone else dear to you may die. Feeling bad about it afterwards is optional, even if you are not a sociopath... not that your subconscious will let you not force you 'deal with it' later on.

Basics:
Know what your defenses are and when to beat feet.
Have access to weapons or tools, and things that could be used as weapons should you need them as such.
Plan, observe, listen, and practice.
Know that your own survival will ensure that of your family.
Know too there is always the chance you will have to die to save them.
Do not take actions that would get you killed and thus leave your family and friends defenseless.
Know what your limitations are and have no illusions that you can take on an army with just a gun and 'balls'
Know your primary environment and know how to function in other environments.
Live and let live in that every person has the same right as you do to live in peace.
Know that having a weapon does not make you strong, a hero or an automatic natural leader or even 'right.'

The last hardest lesson:

You can do everything perfectly and by the numbers 'in peaceful defense or war' and still watch helpless as your friends or family die/get killed.

Sermon over.
M.

reply to post by Evolutionsend
if you look at the number used in the world, a AK out does anything, but if your like me and want the power low MOA M1A1 Garand to read more about this old time fav www.gunshopfinder.com... but yes an AK would be ok with me

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by merkej23

 

That depends. The M16 is supposed to be a main battle rifle.

I've always considered a MBR to be a .308 Semi Auto (M1A , FAL, G3, CETME, HK91, AR10) I'd even through the S308 in there. But I see where you're coming from


To the OP

I personally am not a fan of the AK74 , not because of any problems with the rifle... but because there is nothing that the AK74 does that an M16 or M4 can't do better. I own an SAR-1 (AKM pattern rifle in 7.62x39) and the reason I own it is because it does things that my M4gery can't ...such as turning cover into concealment

I know that the .30 cal round coming out of it will defeat most intermediate barriers it encounters and it will still have enough weight in grains left to do damage should the round fragment. I like my AK because I can beat the hell out of it and it ALWAYS works , it doesn't ask for much and I don't ask it to do anything it wasn't designed to do.

That Giant piston jackhammering away while your firing is a far different feel than the lack of recoil in an M4 and the "SPOING" you hear after the BCG bounces off of the recoil buffer. I like the loose tolerances of my AK (Even though the machining on the inside looks like it was produced by a blind colony of Romanian lepers) She's an ugly gun , but a beautiful piece of engineering.

I enjoy the tight tolerances of the M4gery and the fact that I can shake it and it doesn't make a peep (Provided I'm using Pmags) I like the fact that when I feed her the right ammo, she rewards me with sub MOA accuracy, with my M16A2 I had in the Corps , I was suprised to learn I could hit a man sized target in the torso repeatedly while 5 football fields away. I also have A LOT of muscle memory invested in the AR series , even with a loss of gross motor skills my body would still know what to do.

If I had to go to war, I'd take the M4...If the SHTF here I'd take my AK.

At the end of the day I don't really get into the AK vs AR wars because I own and Love both of them for different reasons.

For all around fun to shoot though... I don't think either one of them can hold a candle to my Mosin 91/30.

reply to post by EyesWideShut

I've always considered a MBR to be a .308 Semi Auto (M1A , FAL, G3, CETME, HK91, AR10) I'd even through the S308 in there. But I see where you're coming from

None of those weapons are being used as an MBR by US armed forces today. Today it is the M16A4.

The multirole weapon of tactical operators have been M4 or M4 style weapons.

reply to post by projectvxn



I understand what you're saying brother ,a "BATTLE RIFLE" uses a full power rifle round , The M16/M4 uses an intermediate rifle round. I've always called the M16/M4 a service rifle. We haven't had a MBR since the M14.

Edit to add, the M4 is a Carbine.

You'll have to forgive me for being a Nomenclature Nazi...lol

reply to post by EyesWideShut


Fair enough. I get the same way when people refer to a magazine as a clip.

the M4 is a Carbine.

Indeed.

Almost everyone I hear that brings up the "which is better" argument are survivalists. Some claim the AR to be better, while others proclaim the AK king. It all boils down to what you'll be using the weapon for. Post SHTF, you probably WON'T be dealing with hordes of marauders in body armor. It's not going to become a Max Maxish world.

You'll need a low maintenance, go anywhere rifle that'll "keep on ticking". The AK line has proven itself time and time again that it will do this mainly because it's been around the block quite a few times. The AK requires extremely little maintenance making it a preferred weapon to many.

The AR is also a great weapon. The woes the first M16 faced during Vietnam has been for the most part quelled making it another great piece of weaponry. But it's a little more advanced then the AK leading to a higher chance of breakage and maintenance. That's what the AK has going for it, it's simplicity.

I don't prefer one weapon over the other really. Both are in my opinion equally great. But the chances are in a survival situation, if you rifle breaks down, you'll probably be able to repair the AK with the minimal of tools.