AR-15 vs AK-74

I was talking about allenidaho's comment
"So it is easier to control, especially at full auto. If any of you have experience using the M4 and a full auto AK, I'm sure you know what I mean".

reply to post by kaskad



Disregard my last

Originally posted by kaskad
I was talking about allenidaho's comment
"So it is easier to control, especially at full auto. If any of you have experience using the M4 and a full auto AK, I'm sure you know what I mean".

I shoot fully automatic weapons on a regular basis. And I've used the RPK-74, which is very similar. What is your question?

reply to post by Evolutionsend


Im not really a huge expret on this subject
but any kind of conditions where my gun wouldnt be overexposed to the elements ar-15
in a case such as the wilderness definatly the ak

Originally posted by allenidaho

Originally posted by kaskad
I was talking about allenidaho's comment
"So it is easier to control, especially at full auto. If any of you have experience using the M4 and a full auto AK, I'm sure you know what I mean".

I shoot fully automatic weapons on a regular basis. And I've used the RPK-74, which is very similar. What is your question?

I don't have a question.
You are incorrect in your statement.
AK 74 is more controllable than M4A1 in both semi and fully automatic modes.
AK/AKM (7.62mm) however is not.

Personally I have more confidence in 5.45 when it comes to knockdown potential over the 5.56... I own a polish ak 74 tantal type rifle as well as an AR. I'm not really sure which one I'd carry in the event of something going down... I think that would depend on how long I figured I would have to go on my own ammo supply. If I was in it for the long haul I think I'd stick with 5.56 just for resupply purposes if no other reason.

BUT the 5.45 does seem to be a much meaner round when it comes to what it'll do to flesh when it strikes.

I do like the low price of 5.45 currently though.

Yeah, $299 for 2160rds is pretty hard to pass.
M855/M193 are the major problems with 5.56 (14.5in barrel or shorter).
The newer Mk262 fixes/improves some of those problems.
Also, the surplus 5.45 ammo that most of us buy is actually an older round (7N6) and is in limited use.
Newer and improved 7N10s and 7N22s with better AP capabilities are actually pretty nice.

DOUBLE POST

I own three AR-15's and one AK 47. I also have a remi .308 on the ar-15 platform.
I feel that the AR-15 allows fr a lot more tactical options and I have not been successful finding a dod scope mounting rig for the AK variant. I bought most of my guns at gun shows, on the last day, when dealers were ready to make deals. Find Guns shows at www.gunshowsnow.com. Happy hunting....

reply to post by Evolutionsend


hello, this is your friendly nieghborhood liberal. i used an m16 in the army and i now own a wasr 10/63 ak47. i like them both and would be all too happy to pick up either in an emergency. both have advantges and draw backs. it really boils down to personal taste. im not much for long range shots so i went with stopping power. ulimately the choice should be yours! please remind the rest of the liberal community that we're supposed to be about CHOICE! p.s. i wont vote

I would personally take a nice AR platform (Daniel Defense, Fulton Armory, DPMS match grade) over an AK47. But if you gave me a low end Bushmaster AR or an AK i would honestly take the AK...

I don't think its completely fair to compare a 5.56 to a 7.62 . If you want to compare anything to a Russian AK-47 - why not the new MK. 14 EBR considering their both being used, they both are 7.62 and the EBR is in use with the US army currently.

I say to all comes down to the fact that the EBR has the R.I.S. which allows for NV scopes to be attached with ease, something which the AK cannot without major modification. Also, compared to the AK the EBR has a lower recoil which allows for more 'on target' shooting.

www.fulton-armory.com...

AK-74 won't reach as far as my AR will.
But then again we get up close my 26 inch barrel isn't an advantage anymore...

Originally posted by Evolutionsend
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?

I am a former marine and did two tours in iraq using an M-16a2. I'd take the Ak-74 any day of the week over an AR variant, and would take an AK-47 over both of them. Loose tolerances = a better weapon system all around. Sure the ar may be more accurate out of the box, but by simply saying that the ak wasn't designed to defeat body armor and is older shouldn't be the factor here. You can build custom rounds chambered in 7.62 that will defeat armor, and have. The low powered 5.45 round of the ak-74 in my opinion sucks, and although it has a high velocity, somewhere around 3000fps, it doesn't have the kinetic energy to be an effective battlefield rifle, which is why the ak47 still reigns supreme as the most used assault rifle in the world.

Originally posted by Evolutionsend
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?

Depending on what class of body protection one has to deal with means only armor piercing rounds can be partially or fully effective. Are you saying the ar-15/m-16 can use a wider such assortment of ammunition or what exactly? I am puzzled.

Yes the ar-15 is equivilent to the ak-74 and the ar-10 is equivilent to the ak-47. I personally like the ak-47 more since it shoots a bigger caliber which means it is more effective at short-to-medium range than the ar-15/m-16.

Generally speaking the bigger the caliber the more effective stopping power you get, but then you compromise with distance and more recoil. The warsaw 7.62 is shorter than the nato 7.62 and thus easier to shoot with.

Nato rounds are 51mm and warsaw rounds are 39mm regardless of caliber. Caliber is bullet width!

reply to post by beautyndissonance


Yes. ak-47 is well built and simple. Much like a jeep truck!

Extra-Features mean little if you can't relly on the gun close to 100%.

The russians and germans always lacked in technology, but they more than made up for that with DURABILITY....

combined with a 7.62 by 39 bullet, you can't go wrong.

AK's better than many nato weapons, well where back in th 90's when i completed a special weapons course in the military.