"Welcome to the Dark Side"

[McMaster 7]

I love the comments in the previous thread that say "welcome to the Dark Side" when referring to... getting into or loving AK's. It's a funny statement but true. Obviously all of us, for the most part, growing up during the Cold War or at the tail end of the Cold War, the Soviet Union was literally the "Dark Side" to us. So naturally, some of us are going to be drawn toward AK47's because it's the weapon of evil... the weapon of our 45 year Cold War enemy. Hell... even 'till this day the AK47 is being wielded against us. Even so, I never think of Middle Eastern terrorists when I think of this rifle, I still think of Communist Russia, which will always have a special place in anyone’s heart over the age of 40. Some of our Grandfathers, Fathers, Uncles, Brothers, Sisters and hell... even some of us here have fought in wars against Imperialist Communism over the ages. It probably won't bring forth a very long thread but I just figured I'd throw this up here to see if anyone had any reflections they'd like to add. I know it's a little cerebral for a gun forum but it just had me thinking... why do we love this rifle so much? What draws us to it? Why do some of us find it so sexy? I mean... I've heard so many arguments from AR guys as to why they hate AK47's so much but you never hear from the other side as to why they love these rifles so dearly. And I'm not talking about... "It's a great mudd gun". I mean really... what draws us to this Rifle? Any thoughts?

[vjf915 456]

...why do we love this rifle so much? What draws us to it? Why do some of us find it so sexy?

Honestly, I don't think they are all very "sexy". The best looking ones have wood, but not too many have a nice finish on the wood. If I wanted a nice looking rifle, I would get an AR....but I don't buy guns so I can look at them. I don't love my "AK's" because they are pretty, but because they are solid workhorses that can take an extreme beating. No, I can't make 5 shot dime sized groups at 100 yards.....but when it really matters will you have that much time to aim?

 

Tell me.....which one would you pick?

[Ray Ray 3,566]

where's glenn, total abuse and USNmars?

[robot_hell 72]

The one on the right. I would be able to carry more ammo.

[vjf915 456]

The one on the right. I would be able to carry more ammo.

Why not just use a .22 if you are worried about carrying ammo.

[robot_hell 72]

Technically, it is a .22

 

With that being said, I like the AK platform for it's simplicity. Stamped from sheet metal... and simple solutions are often the best ones.

 

But I still prefer my AR. Maybe I'm biased, and I'd be able to make a better evaluation if someone were willing to donate me an AK

[Pew Pew Plates 358]

From a mechanical standpoint, they are designed brilliantly. Sure they arent as accurate as an AR but it is accurate enough! Its a friggin' assault rifle not a DMR/sniper rifle

 

I notice you also mention political/ideology appeal.

 

An AK is a symbol of freedom. At first you may think im high on crack for saying this but hear me out. Ar-15: Always used by who? We use it, internally with police, externally with our policing army. UN uses it to look after the world, etc etc.

 

AK, while designed in a communist country, was designed to keep invaders out of russia, for protection (not opression) Now it is used widely by freedom fighters, whom depend on the AK to fight for freedom (wether its from the good or bad guys)

 

 

Of course, both fall into evil hands so thats a wash

[tuktuk 16]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Mozambique.svg

[lunker 274]

Kalashnikov himself said that it is easy to design a complex gun, and extremely hard to design a simple gun. The AK47 is a model of engineering brilliance. It can be operated, field-stripped, maintained, repaired, and cannibalized (for fixing another gun) by someone with minimal mechanical skills. Once you pull off the bolt cover and peer inside, you see that it is made up of a dozen parts. None of them are small and difficult to manipulate. The piston driven gas system is incredibly robust, and it is still able to be combat accurate up to a few hundred yards. The most amazing thing is that it replaced the SKS, which IMO held the same title before it (i.e. simple, reliable, etc), and somehow improved upon it.

In my book, these are Zombie/EOTWAWKI guns #1 and #2. Sheer simplicity and reliability.

[theRU 33]

I'll take this... easy to strip and maintain, swap out and upgrade. Easy to clean piston system, runs dry and not fugley.

[Pew Pew Plates 358]

<a href="http://s16.photobucket.com/albums/b24/laxhitman19/?action=view&current=acreotech.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b24/laxhitman19/acreotech.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

 

 

I'll take this... easy to strip and maintain, swap out and upgrade. Easy to clean piston system, runs dry and not fugley.

 

 

Whatever gun that is, its so fugly it broke the link

[Jon 264]

I'll take this... easy to strip and maintain, swap out and upgrade. Easy to clean piston system, runs dry and not fugley.

 

Or for that price you can buy 4 ak-type rifles and just grab a clean one when your current rifle gets dirty.

[Pew Pew Plates 358]

Or for that price you can buy 4 ak-type rifles and just grab a clean one when your current rifle gets dirty.

 

 

+1, amen!

[Dan 177]

AK certainly has more worldwide notoriety, and for good reason. I own an AK styled one, and I like it, but I prefer my AR. I have two main reasons... a) flatter trajectory on the 5.56 round, just look up battlesight zeroing for both 7.62 and 5.56. The 5.56 allows for more accuracy without fussing with elevation. The 5.45x39 round fixes this and is one of the reasons the Russians switched, so compared to a AK with this round, all I have is ; B) AR to me looks more refined, like a fine instrument compared to an AK. This is my personal opinion, and has no bearing on which is a better design, just aesthetically I prefer the AR.

[Pew Pew Plates 358]

AK certainly has more worldwide notoriety, and for good reason. I own an AK styled one, and I like it, but I prefer my AR. I have two main reasons... a) flatter trajectory on the 5.56 round, just look up battlesight zeroing for both 7.62 and 5.56. The 5.56 allows for more accuracy without fussing with elevation. The 5.45x39 round fixes this and is one of the reasons the Russians switched, so compared to a AK with this round, all I have is ; B) AR to me looks more refined, like a fine instrument compared to an AK. This is my personal opinion, and has no bearing on which is a better design, just aesthetically I prefer the AR.

 

 

Flat trajectory is useless if the round doesnt do sh!t

 

5.56 performs poorly out of a 16" barrel. 5.45 outperforms it due to the hollow nose and steel knocker.

 

7.62 makes bigger holes

[Dan 177]

Flat trajectory is useless if the round doesnt do sh!t

 

5.56 performs poorly out of a 16" barrel. 5.45 outperforms it due to the hollow nose and steel knocker.

 

7.62 makes bigger holes

 

Like the Mk318 SOST 5.56 round?

 

I agree on bigger holes, but for that I'll take 7.62NATO or 7.62x54r

[Pew Pew Plates 358]

Like the Mk318 SOST 5.56 round?

 

I agree on bigger holes, but for that I'll take 7.62NATO or 7.62x54r

 

 

Talking about "normal" ammo.

 

Had to google the MK318. Expensive! So...does this not count as a HP somehow?

By the way, all these fancy rounds they come out with trying to make it effective....is proof that the round by design lacks. You dont see them doing this with 308

[NJ609 22]

Flat trajectory is useless if the round doesnt do sh!t

 

I know you don't actually believe that the 5.56 round "doesnt do sh!t"....

 

Having said that, even though I only have my AR right now, I eventually want one of each. Because the more rifles the merrier!

[Shane45 807]

Oh puleeeeeze. :thsmiley_deadhorse: What the military is confined to using has NO BEARING on what I use. Civy 5.56 effectiveness is at a minimum comparable to 7.62X39 with a FAR more usefull trajectory. As for the operation of the rifle, it may be fine for peasents

[theRU 33]

the only reason i'll get an AK variant is that an extra caliber might be useful. If the chinese attack i may have to scavenge the 5.56 and the 7.62.

 

Same reason why i will have all the major pistol calibers covered.

[Shane45 807]

Or just get the conversion when available for your ACR

[Cemeterys Gun Blob 165]

AK's can handle black powder loads.

 

Nice and smokey, and not too dirty afterwards on the internals.

 

AR's on the other hand.........at least the .223 round.......

 

Sums it up for me.

[theRU 33]

Or just get the conversion when available for your ACR

 

 

This is true..i just dont know when that'll be

[Jon 264]

This is true..i just dont know when that'll be

 

April, 2017

[tbtrout 141]

I have tried, but I just can't get into AK's. I know they are reliable and I would not feel outgunned or inadequate if I was using one. I have shot a top quality one as well and was impressed by it. I just do not like them enough to spend the money for one. Maybe one day that will change.

[Shane45 807]

I didnt even try I am thinking about a 7.62X35 though

[Dan 177]

Talking about "normal" ammo.

 

Had to google the MK318. Expensive! So...does this not count as a HP somehow?

By the way, all these fancy rounds they come out with trying to make it effective....is proof that the round by design lacks. You dont see them doing this with 308

 

Just going by what I have read on the intertubes...

 

Nothing is perfect, everything is a trade off. The new round is all about improvements in performance. MK318 doesnt count as a HP, it is in limited use right now, as they ramp up to replace whatever they are using today (SS109?). Expensive b/c all the supplies are going out to the troops. I'm sure as it replaces the other stuff on the production runs, it will come down some, but doubtful it will be down to practice plinking ammo prices.

 

Russians felt a need to change from 7.62x39 to 5.45x39, I'm betting they had some good reasons to do it. If it wasn't "stopping power", it must have been for accuracy/ballistics reasons.

 

Typical pros and cons between slow and heavy versus fast and light.. comes down to what purpose you are trying to fit. For up to 200ish meters, I feel 7.62 is superior. Past that, its more like a mortar and 5.56 shines as you can still hit your target without having to lob them in.

 

Good info in this thread, where I got the chart below. 7.62x39 past 200 meters forces you to compensate for elevation. @300 meters 7.62 is 31" low, where 5.56 is only around 11 inches as an example.

 

Yellow - 5.56

Blue - 5.45

Red - 7.62

cm drop, and meters range

 

[lunker 274]

I didnt even try I am thinking about a 7.62X35 though

 

Come on, what's 4mm between friends?

[Tactical Monkey 51]

Come on, what's 4mm between friends?

 

 

..well played sir

[vladtepes 1,060]

Just going by what I have read on the intertubes...

 

Nothing is perfect, everything is a trade off. The new round is all about improvements in performance. MK318 doesnt count as a HP, it is in limited use right now, as they ramp up to replace whatever they are using today (SS109?). Expensive b/c all the supplies are going out to the troops. I'm sure as it replaces the other stuff on the production runs, it will come down some, but doubtful it will be down to practice plinking ammo prices.

 

Russians felt a need to change from 7.62x39 to 5.45x39, I'm betting they had some good reasons to do it. If it wasn't "stopping power", it must have been for accuracy/ballistics reasons.

 

Typical pros and cons between slow and heavy versus fast and light.. comes down to what purpose you are trying to fit. For up to 200ish meters, I feel 7.62 is superior. Past that, its more like a mortar and 5.56 shines as you can still hit your target without having to lob them in.

 

Good info in this thread, where I got the chart below. 7.62x39 past 200 meters forces you to compensate for elevation. @300 meters 7.62 is 31" low, where 5.56 is only around 11 inches as an example.

 

Yellow - 5.56

Blue - 5.45

Red - 7.62

cm drop, and meters range

 

 

different round = different tool

right tool for the right job

 

the AR crowd will sit all day and say exactly what you just said "the AR can shoot further more accurately.." and while that is likely true I consider both of these rounds as just mid range rifles.. meaning if you want to shoot a man large animal sized target at mid range then these are ideal.. for me (and my eyes) mid range stops at 150-200... so when I judge the rounds and compare them (7.62x39 VS 223) I judge them based on performance in that 200 yard range.. if I am personally going to shoot at a large target past 200 and intend to neutralize it.. I would not be taking that shot with either of those guns (AR 15 OR AK).. yes I can probably hit something past 200 with my Saiga.. yes you can likely hit something past 200 with your AR... I can hit steel at 200 with my Glock... does not make it the best choice... for me (and my eyes) 200+ yard shots are taken with a scoped 308 gun.. I respect the AR in that it can make long accurate shots.. but that round to me just seems underpowered when compared inside the 200..