The AR vs. AK Debate May Soon Come To A Close: The Faxon Firearms ARAK

A firearms manufacturer by the name of Faxon Firearms has developed an upper receiver with many AK-47 features while still keeping the best of what makes and AR15 great. It also incorporates features found on the FAL. The weapon is still in testing phase and production is hopefully to begin in early 2013.

This upper receiver has a long stroke gas piston system with a FAL style gas regulator, the bolt and carrier group runs along steel rails providing the space between parts and reduction of friction necessary to enhance reliability in adverse conditions when regular cleaning is simply impractical. The adjustable FAL gas regulator allows the system to be "overgassed" when dirt, grime, and rust begins to affect the movement of the bolt carrier group. It also boasts quick barrel change features using only a hex key something AR and AK rifles cannot currently do as they are traditionally fashioned.

This weapon boasts the look, feel, and accuracy of an AR15 with the reliability and rugged construction known around the world of an AK47. This system may very well end the debate by simply and most importantly marrying the best features of both weapons platforms into one system.






Happy Shooting!

Very interesting design. May prove to be a very nice rifle.

Although I personally am not into Ak's or AR's.

Excellent ideas there. I may have found my main battle rifle.

Wow, it only took several decades for someone to think of this! It look pretty cool. As far as the AK/AR debate. Why is everyone comparing their modern/tricked out AR to a first gen AK? I would like to see how this new weapon, the modern AR , and the AK-12 match up.

Went to their website and noticed I live 5 miles away from them!!! I've been thinking about piecing together an AR for awhile.

I'm also interested.
Great find and thanks for posting this and letting us know about this development.

If you like this rifles features
You may also like the Daewoo Maxll rifle which is a great combination, AK gas piston, and AR reciever breach block....
The best of BOTH
www.youtube.com...
See if it compares to this upstart rifle you mention...
The SK army uses the Daewoo Maxll................

More on the Faxon Upper
www.orlandogunclub.com...

Originally posted by projectvxn
A firearms manufacturer by the name of Faxon Firearms has developed an upper receiver with many AK-47 features while still keeping the best of what makes and AR15 great. It also incorporates features found on the FAL. The weapon is still in testing phase and production is hopefully to begin in early 2013.

This upper receiver has a long stroke gas piston system with a FAL style gas regulator, the bolt and carrier group runs along steel rails providing the space between parts and reduction of friction necessary to enhance reliability in adverse conditions when regular cleaning is simply impractical. The adjustable FAL gas regulator allows the system to be "overgassed" when dirt, grime, and rust begins to affect the movement of the bolt carrier group. It also boasts quick barrel change features using only a hex key something AR and AK rifles cannot currently do as they are traditionally fashioned.

This weapon boasts the look, feel, and accuracy of an AR15 with the reliability and rugged construction known around the world of an AK47. This system may very well end the debate by simply and most importantly marrying the best features of both weapons platforms into one system.

Happy Shooting!

edit on 8-12-2012 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)

1. I think the American Way of thinking is wrong, the AR is more accurate than the A.K. only because it's has smaller bullet, (which means faster speed.) not because the A.K. is bad, when you compare the M-14 vs. the AK-47 it's ALL A.K. BABY

2. Now when it comes to the M-16/AR-15 vs. the AK-74/M it think the AR-15/M-16 is better because U.S.A. uses a faster-burning propelant in the "bullet casings" than the AK-74/M

P.S. btw I read in "Solider of Fortune" or may be it was another magazine 3-5 years ago that the same company that made the M-16 also made an M-15 not an AR-15 but a "M-15", it was nice looking, it was chrome and brown wooden handled.

reply to post by ATSWATCHER


While the careful consideration of propellants and the ballistics of the projectile contribute greatly to accuracy, I have found, as many other have before me, that the straight line design of the AR15 platform is a major factor in its accuracy. The ability of the rifle to absorb recoil forces through a gas tube that pushes a bolt and is cushioned by a buffer is the reason return to target is so fast, and pinpoint accuracy can be achieved at distances of 500-600 meters.

The AK platform is the problem when it comes to accuracy. Not the round. Because 7.62x39 performs extremely well from AR based platforms. If anything the AK base hinders the performance of an excellent round.

reply to post by projectvxn


Projectvxn I have read alot what you have posted regarding guns and I have to say regarding the AK accuracy issue you are flat out wrong. It's not the round, it's not the rifle, it's the tolerances. The very same thing that makes the AR platform more accurate than the AK is also the reason why the AK is more reliable than that bastard creation of Eugene Stoner.

Build an AK to the tolerances of a typical AR and get back to me.

OP: This new weapon is interesting. I may have to buy one and do some field testing.

reply to post by netwarrior


I don't think I made that argument at all.

As a matter of fact my entire argument is based on the design of both weapons, this would include component tolerances.

Originally posted by projectvxn

While the careful consideration of propellants and the ballistics of the projectile contribute greatly to accuracy, I have found, as many other have before me, that the straight line design of the AR15 platform (1) is a major factor in its accuracy. The ability of the rifle to absorb recoil forces through a gas tube (2) that pushes a bolt and is cushioned by a buffer (3) is the reason return to target is so fast, (4) and pinpoint accuracy can be achieved at distances of 500-600 meters. (5)

The AK platform is the problem when it comes to accuracy.(6) Not the round. Because 7.62x39 performs extremely well from AR based platforms. (7) If anything the AK base hinders the performance of an excellent round.

Allow me to retort. Forgive me if I seem a little controntational as I have witnessed this rifle fail time and time again in situations that would have killed the operator had it happen in combat. Couple this with I've just spent a shift on my feet all day and my arthritis is giving me fits.

1. Wut? Clarify "straight line design." Functionally, both weapons operate by the same principles.
AK operation

AR operation

As you can see, both weapons operate in a straight line, and functionally the only difference between the AK and an AR upper (minus fire control groups) is the AK uses a piston, while the AR uses direct gas impingement.
I know you understand but I will explain in better detail for the laymen (and women) on ATS. Both rifles use the gas created by the primer-induced detonation of the powder to push the projectile down the barrel. Once the gas reaches the ports drilled into the top of the barrel, a portion of this gas is directed upwards and back towards the rear of the rifles. In the AK, the gas pushes against a piston attached to the bolt carrier assembly to eject the spent casing and cycle a new cartridge into the breech. In an AR, the gases cycle the bolt carrier itself, dumping carbon-laden gas into the chamber. More on this later.

2. The gas tube does precisely jack for absorbing recoil forces. Please clarify this statement as well. The gas tube on an AR is essentially a steel brake line. As a matter of fact, I have performed a field repair of an AR using the exact same thing.

3. No faults with the buffer system, except that it's an unnecessary part made necessary by the lightweight construction of the AR. Also, if the buffer spring shears it causes all kinds of havoc. Keep It Simple, Stupid.

4. The reason the recoil of an AR is so light is *both* due to the buffer system *and* the fact is that it's essentially a varmint round. I have a Force Recon buddy that says this about the 5.56 NATO round, "It takes 5-6 rounds to put a Haji's pecker (thank you ATS censors) in the dirt." AK round = 123 grain. AR round = 62 gr. The lightweight construction of the AR platform coupled with the large amount of powder behind such a small projectile necessitates the buffer system. Less recoil = quicker followups. It is a tradeoff, I will grant you that. After watching 5.56 literally bounce off of a car windshield...i'd rather have a larger bullet.

5. You might be able to *hit* at 500-600 meters, but at that distance the 5.56 round does not have enough energy behind it to make reliable killshots at that range. Granted, I'd rather not be shot by it, as I would like to not be shot at all, but the results are still the same. You can try this yourself. Buy a ham, thaw it out, and wrap it in an old coat. Make your 500-600 meter shot and look at the tissue damage. I have done this and the penetration is less than impressive. If you want to make good 600 meter shots, use an M14, but I suspect your designated marksman would be carrying that beautiful work of art. Yes. It is quite possible to dump 7.62x39 rounds reliably at 500+ meters, but I don't. I can, but not with consistently reproducible results. There are loads of operators that can and do perform these shots on a regular basis, however.

6.

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by netwarrior

 

I don't think I made that argument at all.

edit on 9-12-2012 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)

Forgive me, but that's *exactly* what you said. It is entirely possible to manufacture AK platform rifles to such tight tolerances that they will only work with handloaded ammunition. Accuracy on these rifles is amazing, but they are so picky about what ammunition they will digest that it makes them undesirable. I prefer a happy medium, and I have reached it with my AK. *Continued on next post*

Originally posted by projectvxn

While the careful consideration of propellants and the ballistics of the projectile contribute greatly to accuracy, I have found, as many other have before me, that the straight line design of the AR15 platform (1) is a major factor in its accuracy. The ability of the rifle to absorb recoil forces through a gas tube (2) that pushes a bolt and is cushioned by a buffer (3) is the reason return to target is so fast, (4) and pinpoint accuracy can be achieved at distances of 500-600 meters. (5)

The AK platform is the problem when it comes to accuracy.(6) Not the round. Because 7.62x39 performs extremely well from AR based platforms. (7) If anything the AK base hinders the performance of an excellent round.

Allow me to retort. Forgive me if I seem a little controntational as I have witnessed this rifle fail time and time again in situations that would have killed the operator had it happen in combat. Couple this with I've just spent a shift on my feet all day and my arthritis is giving me fits.

1. Wut? Clarify "straight line design." Functionally, both weapons operate by the same principles.
AK operation

AR operation

As you can see, both weapons operate in a straight line, and functionally the only difference between the AK and an AR upper (minus fire control groups) is the AK uses a piston, while the AR uses direct gas impingement.
I know you understand but I will explain in better detail for the laymen (and women) on ATS. Both rifles use the gas created by the primer-induced detonation of the powder to push the projectile down the barrel. Once the gas reaches the ports drilled into the top of the barrel, a portion of this gas is directed upwards and back towards the rear of the rifles. In the AK, the gas pushes against a piston attached to the bolt carrier assembly to eject the spent casing and cycle a new cartridge into the breech. In an AR, the gases cycle the bolt carrier itself, dumping carbon-laden gas into the chamber. More on this later.

2. The gas tube does precisely jack for absorbing recoil forces. Please clarify this statement as well. The gas tube on an AR is essentially a steel brake line. As a matter of fact, I have performed a field repair of an AR using the exact same thing.

3. No faults with the buffer system, except that it's an unnecessary part made necessary by the lightweight construction of the AR. Also, if the buffer spring shears it causes all kinds of havoc. Keep It Simple, Stupid.

4. The reason the recoil of an AR is so light is *both* due to the buffer system *and* the fact is that it's essentially a varmint round. I have a Force Recon buddy that says this about the 5.56 NATO round, "It takes 5-6 rounds to put a [*snip*] pecker (thank you ATS censors) in the dirt." AK round = 123 grain. AR round = 62 gr. The lightweight construction of the AR platform coupled with the large amount of powder behind such a small projectile necessitates the buffer system. Less recoil = quicker followups. It is a tradeoff, I will grant you that. After watching 5.56 literally bounce off of a car windshield...i'd rather have a larger bullet.

5. You might be able to *hit* at 500-600 meters, but at that distance the 5.56 round does not have enough energy behind it to make reliable killshots at that range. Granted, I'd rather not be shot by it, as I would like to not be shot at all, but the results are still the same. You can try this yourself. Buy a ham, thaw it out, and wrap it in an old coat. Make your 500-600 meter shot and look at the tissue damage. I have done this and the penetration is less than impressive. If you want to make good 600 meter shots, use an M14, but I suspect your designated marksman would be carrying that beautiful work of art. Yes. It is quite possible to dump 7.62x39 rounds reliably at 500+ meters, but I don't. I can, but not with consistently reproducible results. There are loads of operators that can and do perform these shots on a regular basis, however.

6.

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by netwarrior

 

I don't think I made that argument at all.

edit on 9-12-2012 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)

Forgive me, but that's *exactly* what you said. It is entirely possible to manufacture AK platform rifles to such tight tolerances that they will only work with handloaded ammunition. Accuracy on these rifles is amazing, but they are so picky about what ammunition they will digest that it makes them undesirable. I prefer a happy medium, and I have reached it with my AK. *Continued on next post*




That was NOT a racial slur and I request that this mod note be removed from this post.

reply to post by netwarrior


1st I didn't say the gas tube does anything to absorb recoil. However how the gas is used DOES have an impact on recoil. The AK design is not straightline in the way recoil forces work on the platform. The muzzle rise difference between these two weapons is evidence enough, even when using 7.62x39 ammunition.

The majority of the recoil force is delivered to the receiver on the AK. And since it is not buffered the felt recoil is greater. The recoil on an AR platform passes from the upper receiver to the buffer straight back. The buffer itself as well as how the gas is used in the rifle mitigate the force. The AK stops the gas through the receiver to cycle the action via a piston. The recoil force meets a wall where the stock begins. The majority of the gas is expelled via the barrel. These two design features combine to create a much higher level of muzzle climb. A PLATFORM issue one has that the other does not.

The AR 15s problem is heat and tight quartering of individual components which require far more maintenance for the weapon to remain reliable.

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by netwarrior

 

The AR 15s problem is heat and tight quartering of individual components which require far more maintenance for the weapon to remain reliable.

edit on 9-12-2012 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)

Agreed on the heat issue. I haven't done it but that same Marine has actually set his AK on fire before. The finish used to be blued. Now it's completely discolored to the point that it looks like Dura-Kote

Still, you're not addressing my points. You can build an AK to match the ARs accuracy. You cannot build an AR that will match the AK's reliability. That tells me that the problem is a flaw with the fundamental design of the platform...and it still craps where it eats.


Edit: aw man I just realize that it double posted my first post instead of posting my page 2. I have homework to do, hopefully I can get to rewriting it tonight.

reply to post by netwarrior


Also while the ballistic of the 7.62x39 are vastly different than the 5.56x45 it is important to note that the platform they are used on makes a very big difference in how the round behaves. I have found that 7.62x39 behaves very differently at longer distances with an AR platform. I have also noted differences in how 5.56 behave out of AK design based weapons. I believe the marriage of the two systems is the only way to mitigate the issues found with both platforms.

Hopefully this receiver from Faxon has achieved just that.

reply to post by netwarrior


I agree actually.

But the AR system has a few tricks of it own. While fouling in a DI system is certainly an issue there have been some changes made by certain manufacturers that deal with the issues that arise from fouling. Like FTE malfunctions using steel cased ammo. Did you see my thread on the M400by Sig? Small changes have gone a long way toward increasing the reliability of the AR design. I'm guessing that the ARAK is going to force the industry to take a serious look at how tactical rifles are built.

reply to post by projectvxn


I am interested in hearing about your observations in the two platforms. Short summary please? I am interested because I have not yet fired a 5.56 from an AK platform, only 5.45, 7.62x39, 7.62x54r, and .308. I keep meaning to pick up one of the Galil clones but I am saving for NVGs. I have guns. I don't have NVGs. Priorities.