Its intereting you mention mags as an AR-15 positive. Everything ive read AND experienced is the opposite. AK mags have solid steel thick feed lips and steel bodies. Never heard of anybody having mag issues. On the otherhand, I've heard of AR mags having the floorplates randombly blow off during training, feed lips bend, just general finicky unreliable and un-sturdy. Why do you need fancy anti-tilt followers and such? And everyone saying "these mags are good, these mags are bad"? No such thing as bad mags on an AK unless the body is severely dented in (which would put any mag out of commision)

 

+1 reliability.

Well we have our own dance called the pogo stick Similer in execution without the boot hehe.

 

Ill tell ya, Sometimes I check at matches. The bolt is so quick that if I dont see that flash of brass, I get worried the timer will go off and Ill go CLICK! So I do a little visual and bump the FA. Ive done it on my XCR and my FAL too which are more AK like than AR like.

 

So, the AR needed to evolve into an XCR ... about time, but still requires the operator to do a check! AK had it from the get go, piston driven and all, AND click-bang reliability. And look at the number of AK's vs. AR's in the world! Even the precursor to the AK, the SKS is damn reliable ... simply no contest.

AK47 for SHTF (AR is beauty queen with quirks)

 

AK74 for Mil over AR-15/M-16

 

AR may eventually catch up to AK74 with ACR/XCR ...

ACR/SCAR/XCR are not the next iteration of AR15 variants. The last iteration was probably KAC's SR15/16/25-- Stoner's last designs. The ACR, etc, are next gen systems vying for the nex contracts (with the SCAR most likely getting the contract).

Also, what operational or any real world (to include training) experience do you have with either system (AR or AK)?

Also, as stated, the AK was created for a conscript force, while Stoner's design was for a more finely tuned force that quickly realized applied BRM/ARM was more of a force multiplier then sheer numbers.

Its intereting you mention mags as an AR-15 positive. Everything ive read AND experienced is the opposite. AK mags have solid steel thick feed lips and steel bodies. Never heard of anybody having mag issues. On the otherhand, I've heard of AR mags having the floorplates randombly blow off during training, feed lips bend, just general finicky unreliable and un-sturdy. Why do you need fancy anti-tilt followers and such? And everyone saying "these mags are good, these mags are bad"? No such thing as bad mags on an AK unless the body is severely dented in (which would put any mag out of commision)

I have to disagree with you on the mags. AK mag quality varies quite a bit. All of the problems I have ever encountered with AK type rifles has been due to mags. The body is strong, but the follower is very primitive and I have had them nosedive/stick in the mag body.

Agree 100% with BBK. Radek, you better go do some research into what long piston and short piston designs are about and where that lineage really stems from. If you REALLY do your research you will find that just about every weapon system out there draws something from somwhere else including the AK. As stated the XCR is a new design but you can see where it draws from the AK, AR and FAL. Same for ACR and SCAR. One more thing, WAR's are won by politicions, battles are won by soldiers. Not really noting many in the battle win catagory for the ak... Think about it, top tier units get somewhat free license when it comes to weaponry, how come they aint all running around with AK's? (Covert ops where they need to look indiginous notwithstanding). If it were truly superior dont you think they would be using it? Is your experience greater than that of our top tier warfighters or that of the guy who wrote the article I referenced that has a qual list a mile long?

 

Why do I debate these topics? Because it irritates me that so many read something and regurgitate something as fact with no personal experience on that something or a real understanding of the source of their info :roll: Now some in this thread have their experience that has led them to the way they feel AND I TOTALLY RESPECT THAT POSITION even if I may disagree or believe the perception to be possibly dated.

 

Finally for those that think the AK is unfallable, yeah go spend some time with youtube will ya!

Agree 100% with BBK. Radek, you better go do some research into what long piston and short piston designs are about and where that lineage really stems from. If you REALLY do your research you will find that just about every weapon system out there draws something from somwhere else including the AK. As stated the XCR is a new design but you can see where it draws from the AK, AR and FAL. Same for ACR and SCAR. One more thing, WAR's are won by politicions, battles are won by soldiers. Not really noting many in the battle win catagory for the ak... Think about it, top tier units get somewhat free license when it comes to weaponry, how come they aint all running around with AK's? (Covert ops where they need to look indiginous notwithstanding). If it were truly superior dont you think they would be using it? Is your experience greater than that of our top tier warfighters or that of the guy who wrote the article I referenced that has a qual list a mile long?

 

Why do I debate these topics? Because it irritates me that so many read something and regurgitate something as fact with no personal experience on that something or a real understanding of the source of their info :roll: Now some in this thread have their experience that has led them to the way they feel AND I TOTALLY RESPECT THAT POSITION even if I may disagree or believe the perception to be possibly dated.

 

Finally for those that think the AK is unfallable, yeah go spend some time with youtube will ya!

 

 

 

But this isnt an ACR/SCAR/FAL/evil death ray vs AK thread.

Agreed Glenn, my coments are specifically responding to Radek...

 

As far as death ray, that would be my GA Precision AR10 in 260!!!

I voted AR. I have used one in combat, it worked well for me, and there is no reason to change. I've used ARs, M16s, and M4s for over 40 years in jungles, desert, and just about every environment you can think of. Reliability issues are way overblown. Even in the 60s if you took reasonably good care of the rifle it would work. Most of the people condemning the AR and extolling the virtues of the AK have zero field experience with the rifle. They are just repeating crap "experts" keep telling them. Yes, the AK can be neglected more but the AR is far from what its critics make it out to be. Piston ARs seem to be more reliable but I wouldn't want to take one into combat now as they haven't been around long enough.

EDIT: nervermind. Not worth it.

lol.

 

Just to clarify:

the AR option is not the "other" option. It is for AR series, specifically m16a1, a2, a3, a4 and the M4 series. If you would rather vote for a SCAR or ACR or FAL, then dont vote at all. The AR doesnt count as any of those.

 

I'm aware that there are better rifles than BOTH of those (yes, I admited something is better than the AK!) but thats not what this poll is about :naughty:

[attachment=0]husband-wife.jpg[/attachment] Interesting situation at home :

Me - AR

Wife - AK

Glenn, stop being a douchebag.

 

while this was started as a joke, I am sure.... this has turned into a great discussion on the two different firearms philosophies and is getting quite beneficial to those that are currently looking to purchase a firearm or thinking of investing into a battle system for the SHTF scenarios.

 

the whole AK vs AR thing is like the Mosin vs Mauser debate.

 

look at the SVT - 40, a great firearm that was over engeneered. It had probably killed more Russians whom created it then Germans. the Russian's could not use a weapon that needed regular cleaning, maintenance, or a firearm that needed someone to truly appreciate it.

 

that is why the AK was designed. The AK was designed to work in any environment, so that anyone can use it. That is why every child in 8th grade in russia, during the soviet days knew how to field strip an AK.

 

the AR was not designed as such.

 

On the flip side of it... find me an AK that can win an NRA national high power match?

 

My personal issue with the AR system, is the fact that for a shit hits the fan scenario, I cannot be forced to look into a scenario where I need to find Brass Cased ammo, because my AR/Sig 556/ Colt national match will not cycle steel cased ammo.

 

in a SHTF scenario, I would choose the AK with mediocre everything else... over an AR that can take the wings off of a fly at 200 yards.

 

If this is a barricade and stay in and I have 50k rounds of quality 223... i would choose the AR any day of the week.

 

So does the AK from personal experience seem more reliable.... for me yes.... in the 10k rounds or so that I shot..., 0 malfunctions, however to call an AK all around more supreme is just being ludicrous.

 

XCR over AK? Any day of the week.

Maks bringing the heat! :twisted:

 

Guys lets all take a breath and a break from telling each other yer kid is ugly LOL. This debate, like Ford vs Chevy WILL NOT be won here. As I have said before MANY TIMES, fit the tool to the mission. One is not all encompassing. Pick what you think meets the broadest selection of your needs and run with it. Trust in YOUR chosen weapon system goes a long way. With that being said its always good to have an open mind!

 

It would be rather interesting to narrow the focus from the world battlefield to our own experiences a bit.

 

Heres mine:

Out of 10 or so AR's over the years I had 1 Colt that was problematic. All the rest have been dead reliable! I admit to not having particulerly high round counts on any of them but thats my experience just the same. My latest AR is a Colt 6940 which is just a honey of a rifle!!! I would trust this rifle.

 

DSA SA58c JAM JAM JAM JAM JAM HOLLY SHIT JAM JAM. OH Im adjusting the gas incorrectly, never a jam again, dead reliable. I would trust this rifle.

Robarm XCR JAM JAM JAM JAM JAM HOLLY SHIT JAM JAM. Known issue with the XCR that break in is a BITCH. After that she is dead reliable!!! I would trust this rifle. Have been running it in 3 gun and has not let me down.

SKS Reliable. Mediocre accuracy. But damn somehow this thing had a nasty habbit of spitting oil on my glasses!

 

I have shot but never owned an AK that I shot. So I dont feel I have enough seat time to speak on this platforms reliability for me.

Glenn, stop being a douchebag.

 

while this was started as a joke, I am sure.... this has turned into a great discussion on the two different firearms philosophies and is getting quite beneficial to those that are currently looking to purchase a firearm or thinking of investing into a battle system for the SHTF scenarios.

 

the whole AK vs AR thing is like the Mosin vs Mauser debate.

 

look at the SVT - 40, a great firearm that was over engeneered. It had probably killed more Russians whom created it then Germans. the Russian's could not use a weapon that needed regular cleaning, maintenance, or a firearm that needed someone to truly appreciate it.

 

that is why the AK was designed. The AK was designed to work in any environment, so that anyone can use it. That is why every child in 8th grade in russia, during the soviet days knew how to field strip an AK.

 

the AR was not designed as such.

 

On the flip side of it... find me an AK that can win an NRA national high power match?

 

My personal issue with the AR system, is the fact that for a **** hits the fan scenario, I cannot be forced to look into a scenario where I need to find Brass Cased ammo, because my AR/Sig 556/ Colt national match will not cycle steel cased ammo.

 

in a SHTF scenario, I would choose the AK with mediocre everything else... over an AR that can take the wings off of a fly at 200 yards.

 

If this is a barricade and stay in and I have 50k rounds of quality 223... i would choose the AR any day of the week.

 

So does the AK from personal experience seem more reliable.... for me yes.... in the 10k rounds or so that I shot..., 0 malfunctions, however to call an AK all around more supreme is just being ludicrous.

 

XCR over AK? Any day of the week.

 

 

 

Ouch! :?

I know the AK wont win a match, I never said what would you take to a national match. I said combat situations. I specified that because no rifle is the best for every possible situation. And I dont know why all these other guns are coming into the mix. Yes, Ide take an XCR over an AK also, but thats not an option for the poll.

but depends on what combat situation...

 

Ie tangos at 400 yards and it is your only weapon.... or

 

you just need to suppress the crowds and throw cover fire and there is a guy with a 338 lapua sniper taking out targets at 1000 +.

 

But luckily..... we are not limited to one or the other. =)

Yeah but Glenn, heres the twist. I bet my Colt 6940 is as reliable as my XCR...... which brings us back full circle to dont believe the myth.....

 

Again, what top tier unit chooses AK's? NONE that I have ever run across. (again covert ops not withstanding)

I have come across ones with SCAR, DSA SA58, HK416's.............

Yeah but Glenn, heres the twist. I bet my Colt 6940 is as reliable as my XCR...... which brings us back full circle to dont believe the myth.....

 

Again, what top tier unit chooses AK's? NONE that I have ever run across. (again covert ops not withstanding)

I have come across ones with SCAR, DSA SA58, HK416's.............

 

 

Spetsnaz

That is why every child in 8th grade in russia, during the soviet days knew how to field strip an AK.

 

and Poland, the Czechs, Yugo's, Croats, and all the other Satellite nations as well.

:roll:

And AR takes the lead!!!!

So heres a little S stirring and a question for you commie gun lovers, why not the FAL? In my opinion its is as reliable, more rugged, better accuracy, better round, better ergos, better features......

 

And Glenn, I liked your Spetsnaz answer, that was a good one hehe. I walked right into that one

In my opinion its is as reliable, more rugged

Not sure I count as a commie gun lover but, for the sake of s* stirring, original design FAL or DSA FAL? Larry Vickers did an episode on the FAL on this seasons Tactical Arms, and if you believe him (and I tend to, even if this episode came across as a sales pitch for DSA), the original design may not have been that rugged and reliable. I don't know enough about the FAL to know how accurate the show was or not, but it certainly seemed as if the FAL wasn't particularly keen on things like getting buried in dirt and mud.

I dont know too much about the FAL other than what I hear which is that its amazingly rugged and reliable AND accurate and powerfull. Kinda best of everything. But thats not the classic noob forum question! AK vs AR, 45 vs 9mm, yaknow. I love .308! Yep, thats right, I like a gun thats not commie!

 

Silent souls leave .308 holes 8-)

For clarity, I am referring to a quality FAL like the original FN FAL's, or a quality repro like an ARS or DSA. Mines a DSA. FAL reliability legends rivals that of the AK from my research. Havent you guys ever heard of old dirty?????

 

 

http://www.falfiles.com/forums/showthre ... genumber=1

Glenn I knew there was a reason to like ya hiding somewhere

Hey, I voted for the FAL back on page 3 already.

 

The FAL is a rifle that is on my short list

 

 

So heres a little S stirring and a question for you commie gun lovers, why not the FAL? In my opinion its is as reliable, more rugged, better accuracy, better round, better ergos, better features......

 

And Glenn, I liked your Spetsnaz answer, that was a good one hehe. I walked right into that one

Havent you guys ever heard of old dirty?????

 

http://www.falfiles.com/forums/showthre ... genumber=1

Sadly, no, but will take a look. I'm more familiar with "filthy 14"... 30,000+ rounds and counting...

In my original readings, I recall the FAl design was tooo much for such a platform, ie 7.62x51 overpowered it. Much like the Romak PSL with 7.62x54r.

In my opinion its is as reliable, more rugged

Not sure I count as a commie gun lover but, for the sake of s* stirring, original design FAL or DSA FAL? Larry Vickers did an episode on the FAL on this seasons Tactical Arms, and if you believe him (and I tend to, even if this episode came across as a sales pitch for DSA), the original design may not have been that rugged and reliable. I don't know enough about the FAL to know how accurate the show was or not, but it certainly seemed as if the FAL wasn't particularly keen on things like getting buried in dirt and mud.

 

Yeah, he basically loves DSA and everything about them. But the original FAL failed his simple tests, no?