AR-15 vs AK-74

reply to post by projectvxn



That instantly raises my BP 30pts...

reply to post by EyesWideShut


My wife does that to me just to get a rise.

It's boiled down to simply disapproving looks.

One of my better quality guns is a Smith & Wesson AR-15 upper carbine in 5.45X39, mated to a tight fitting Rock River lower. I shoot Russian corrosive ammo, so I must clean it after every shooting session.

You can shoot all day with it. RGuns sells 2,180 rds. for $280 plus $30 shipping.

An AK-74 rifle if not better quailty, is much more reliable for "government work," than the AR-15 - 50 yards and under; which is most of the battlefield situations.

I prefer U.S. made AK-74's but the next best, would probably be a Bulgarian model.

The only better system for the AR-15 is that it has a faster magazine removal and insertion than the AKs.

I own a AK-74, Polish Wasr88[Model88]. It uses the very fast Tapco trigger group. The barrel is a piece of doodoo. Green Mountain Barrel Company is thinking about making a replacement barrel for it. It will shoot the Russian corrosive fine, but will keyhole Silver Bear ammo.

Both the AR-15 in 5.45X39 and my Polish AK-74 are very fun to shoot, at the gunrange that I am a member of.

The Russian military 5.45X39 FMJ is a much better quality round, than the 5.56X45 FMJ, because of tumbling effect when it hits flesh.

As an owner of both an AR15 and recently an AK47, I have realized they are pretty tough to compare. I have been shooting an AR15 for nearly four years now, and an AK47 for only eight months or so and honestly I prefer the AK47. I have had some troubles with my AR15 when it comes to jamming, but not enough to be a serious problem, my preference lies in the fact that the AK47 is so simple and durable. I would carry my AK47 if I had to choose between the two, not because I feel that it is necessarily better, but because I prefer the way it feels and shoots.

reply to post by Erno86

The Russian military 5.45X39 FMJ is a much better quality round, than the 5.56X45 FMJ, because of tumbling effect when it hits flesh.

The 5.56mm still does do this.

It used to be far more pronounced because the M16 would have a 1:12 right hand twist which under-stabilized the round and you'd get a "keyhole" effect on target. When they switched over to Chrome/Molybdenum barrels in a 1:9 twist this effect was mitigated.

Today heavier rounds are being stabilized with 1:7 twist rates for bullets 70gr and above.

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by Erno86

 

The Russian military 5.45X39 FMJ is a much better quality round, than the 5.56X45 FMJ, because of tumbling effect when it hits flesh.

The 5.56mm still does do this.

It used to be far more pronounced because the M16 would have a 1:12 right hand twist which under-stabilized the round and you'd get a "keyhole" effect on target. When they switched over to Chrome/Molybdenum barrels in a 1:9 twist this effect was mitigated.

Today heavier rounds are being stabilized with 1:7 twist rates for bullets 70gr and above.

Thanks for refreshing my memory. I believe the 1:12 twist rate was changed during the Vietnam War. Can you tell me what year the 1:12 twist rate was changed? This twist rate change, only compounded the problems of the M-16, by lessening the kill ratio on the enemy.

I've forgotten, but can you tell me the type of powder that caused so much fouling problems with the M-16, during the early stages of the Vietnam War? Was it ball or stick powder?

I believe, that the Russian military 5.45X39 fmj, has a mild steel core wrapped in a lead sheet on the forward portion of the steel core, with a hollow space just in front of it; with a lead core, I think, just underneath the tip.

After a quarter inch penetration in flesh, the steel core shoots into the hollow space, causing the bullet to yaw and tumble.

The Afghan warriors, named it the "poison pill," because it caused such devastating wounds.

The Russians denied making the bullet to cause it to tumble, because the claimed it was part of the manufacturing process, not styling it intentionally to tumble. What do you or anybody else, think that the Russians were telling the truth about the subject?


Thanks,

Erno86

Originally posted by Erno86


can you tell me the type of powder that caused so much fouling problems with the M-16, during the early stages of the Vietnam War? Was it ball or stick powder?

I'm not sure which powder was used , (I wasn't produced yet at that point in time) but I don't think the powder was the problem so much as the rifle was initially marketed as "Self Cleaning" and hence was shipped overseas to troops sans cleaning kits and PM info.

reply to post by EyesWideShut


I believe they loaded it with an inefficient granular powder that wound up causing pitting inside the unlined barrels. Once the propellant was changed to short "stick" powder, the barrels lined with chrome, and cleaning kits issued most of the problems with the AR platform went away.

Today heat issues are the problem. Which is why we're seeing lots of after market heat dissipation products, and gas piston kits.

5.56 NATO has superior accuracy.

5.45 Russian has superior economy.

7.62 short Russian has superior ability to vaporize matter at close range.

I can't figure out what 7.62 long Russian is superior at because I can't see anymore after the muzzle flash blinds me.

Treat them all like women treat shoes. Buy all of them and spend an hour deciding which one to take with you each time you go to the range.

If I could own only one, I would take the AK. I own both. I'd rather use the AR but I trust the AK to work every time. The AK is like my Glocks, the AR like the 1911s.

I'm more confident shooting my AR for accuracy, but more confident in the AK not being fussy.

reply to post by projectvxn


Thanks for that, I actually learned something today! (regarding the powder) As far as piston guns go, I'm kinda on the fence... I've always used DI rifles and found no fault with them as long as they're PM'd regularly and lubed properly.

The AK74 is a bit different from the AK47, I've never heard one either, mostly because AK's are very hard to get in California. I've seen the round, its oblong and lopsided looking. the bullet is exceptionally long, almost 2xas long as the .223. In the Middle East it’s called the poison bullet, describing its effectiveness in flesh as if it was poison.
There are both imported AK74 models and American made ones that can compete with the accuracy of the AR15, some are actually very accurate. The 5.45 bullet flies about 100-200 fps slower than the .223 so I guess the AR15 wins that one. There are 5.56 caliber AK's though.

Comparing a quality AK74 to a regular AR15 they're pretty evenly matched- price, range, accuracy, penetration, flesh wounding. The AK wins in reliability, durability, and simplicity. The AR15 wins in lighter weight and ability to add optics, tactical accessories easier.
Arsenal AK's are just as accurate as any AR15.
The newer AK10x series are balanced and designed to shoot accurately enough to compete with western rifles. They are supposed to shoot 1-2 MOA, about the same as the average AR15 can.

reply to post by driewe



I dunno , I don't have any personal experience with AK74's but I personally think Arsenal makes the nicest AK's out right now , my buddy has a milled one in x39 and it's got a great fit and finish...but doesn't really shoot much better than my SAR-1.

My M4gery has a 16" Green Mountain Barrel with a 1:7 twist , with Black Hills 69gr Sierra MatchKings it hits between .5-.7 MOA CONSISTENTLY. Now I'm sure if I was using wolf or tula ammo it would open that up a bit , but even then I'd find it hard to believe that an AK74 is that accurate , I mean I don't even think Krebs AK's are that accurate. I know you said you've never shot an AKM pattern rifle before , but the tolerances on them are generous to say the least (with good reason) large tolerances are normally detrimental to accuracy.

I think the accuracy win goes to the AR platform , by a mile.

reply to post by EyesWideShut


Same here. But those gas tubes will turn red hot with enough consistent firing.

I own a KTR- 03S, Krebs Custom AK-47, in 7.62X39. It's my SHTF rifle, for its ability to destroy cinderblock [on YouTube,] much better than the 5.56X45; though it is not as accurate as my AR-15's.

Can you believe that I even jammed my AK? Done by shortstroking the charging handle twice, thus sending a live round into the back of the reciever behind the trigger group.

I'm pretty sure AK 74 (5.45) muzzle velocity is actually higher than M 4 (5.56), ~900 m/s (16 in barrel) vs ~880 m/s (14.5 in barrel).
As far as tumbling, M855/SS109 (5.56) was not designed to tumble, but fragment, while 7N6 (5.45) was made with a hollow pocket under the jacket (hence the tumbling effect).
The M855 and M193 (5.56) need to be traveling at around 820 m/s in order to fragment. With a 14.5 in barrel you are looking at a max fragment range of ~50m for M855 and ~100m for M193 (if your lucky).

As far as AR 15 vs AK 74, I have a 5.45 upper for my AR.

reply to post by kaskad


Indeed. I prefer the AR platform by far.

So if I were going to shoot 7.62x39, or a 5.45 I'd use an upper receiver for it.

The AK series is great. I own one. I shoot it all the time. But it will always have a little more recoil than the AR series.

This is due to the piston system. The weight of the moving piston and receiver block at the top of the gun causes the gun to kick up a little with each shot.

There is less weight being pushed back in an AR with a direct impingement system. 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.

Why don't you try going full auto on AK 74 (which is what being discussed here), than come back and talk to us.

reply to post by kaskad


Why? There's really no need for FA other than suppressive fire.