OPFOR stole my answer and the logic behind it. I do need to add that it seems to me that almost every battle is won by the guys carrying the M-16/AR.
I'll take the AR anyday.
i chose the AR because my only experiences with the two were m-4's/m-16/AR-15's and confiscated AK-47's and 1 SKS. the 7.62 might be able to shoot through the worst conditions but are crude overall (i hate the cocking lever) and i think that's what makes them work. take care of your 5.56 and you can mow them all down... accurately.
I'd go with the AK. Most battle distances (personal experience) the accuracy issue wasn't that big of a deal. I'd rather have the rifle that definitely goes bang everytime and leaves a bigger hole.
Sixto said:
I do need to add that it seems to me that almost every battle is won by the guys carrying the M-16/AR.
I do notice an interesting pattern here though. Most of us who have been in combat would choose the AR's. Those who are speculating choose the AK. I'm not saying thats a bad choice, just interesting.
Don't mean to hijack this thread, but I REALLY need to talk to you about your 2X Aimpoint!
I treated myself to a Springfield SOCOM for Christmas.
I have some experience with forward mounting a Burris Scout Scope on a Mini-14 and it was very positive.
Aimpoint is the only company offering a magnifying Red Dot. It seems to me that a 2X Red Dot forward mounted ala a Scout Scope would, theoretically, give you the best of both worlds - the speed of a red dot for CQB plus the greater long range accuracy of a 2X Scope.
Problem is, I didn't know anyone who has one or who could report on how the theory holds up in the real world. Until now.
Optimistic Paranoid, here are a few other options to think about:
The Trijicon 2.5x ACOG. Not quite as easy to pick up quickly as a true "red dot," but excellent optics - durable, self-illuminating, small, light, good clarity and light gathering for the size, et cetera. A definite contender.
The Leupold Mk 4 CQ/T. This is more of a true "red dot" and gives from 0 to 3x magnification. Lens quality is excellent, as we've come to expect from Leupold. This is bigger and heavier than the 2.5x ACOG, but is more versatile. I did see one break (though it was just a chip out of the rear lens, and the optic was still functional) when the M14 it was attached to fell out of a moving HMMWV. I doubt many other optics would have fared any better, though, and most would have fared much worse.
Owned both, shot both. Have seen more than a few people shot with both (not shot by me:biggrin2: ). Both work well, both will do the job. Am I cheating if my AK shoots like my AR? Crude tools can be improved......:wink:
The reliability of the AK combined the accuracy of an AR.
My Galil is my battle rifle of choice. :king:
Hefty price tag these days though. :yup:
It's a bit on the heavy side since it was originally designed to be a full auto squad weapon with a fully machined receiver...but ya can't beat those 50 round SHTF magazines and it's an incredibly accurate rifle.
Nearly recoiless and it never burps.
What they both said. Gimme a vise grip, bailing wire, chewing gum and a stick and I'll fix any AK. I can't afford to buy or carry the ER tools required for an AR.
I would go with AK, Have read a lot about proper upkeep of AR and it was not encouraging. I lost a lot of friends in Vietnam due to faulty AR's.( I know they are better now, but still don't trust them)
Personally I would prefer a M14 or a M1A of National Match Quality.
Were I to have to go into Battle right now, I would take 3 rifles.
My MAK91, Marlin lever action 44Mag, and my Ruger M77 bolt action with Target Barrel in .308 (.5 Min/angle)
I picked the AK but what I would really want is the HK 416. I think they frankensteined themselves the best AR15/M16 style gun any one could want. They fired it two seconds after unburying it from the sand, two seconds after submerging it, then rotated it from inverted to upright 360 degrees while firing it full auto and never had a malfunction. Then they shot 90 rounds full auto and pulled the bolt out to find it cool to the touch. The insides work like an HK but the rest is all AR. I want one (needless to say). Military and Police sales only for now though.
I guess it really depends on the type of combat situation you're talking about. Most of what we're seeing nowadays tends to be taking place in urban areas. That being the case, I don't think it really matters, either one would be fine.
now for some qualifiers:
-I wouldn't take the AR if I was restricted to FMJ ammo
-I wouldn't take the AK if I knew that I'd need precision accuracy out beyond 150-200 yards or so. Actually, in this case I wouldn't want the AR either, I'd want something in .308 (FAL, M1A, G3, etc.)
If you handed me one of each that I'd never shot and didn't know anything about, I'd take the AK simply because IMO, there's less that can go wrong .
I watched old men argue about the weather in Arizona day in and day out and that never changes. I guess with six pages of responses people still wanted to talk about AKs and ARs.
I want a plethora of guns in either flavor and many others to be quite honest with all of you (especially an HK416 though-in case Santa reads this).
I'd prefer the AR because I think it's better ergonomically. I thried getting the feel of an AK at a gun show and it felt like it was made for someone much smaller. I didn't like it. The AR feels much better, especially with a collapsible stock.
Of course, in a "Red Dawn" scenario I'll take anything I can get my hands on.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Defensive Carry
5.4M posts
117.5K members
Since 2004
A forum community dedicated to defensive firearm owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about everyday carry, optics, holsters, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!