In 1966 and 1967 and part of 1969 I was in Vietnam. I was infantry and saw my share of action. My weapon was an AR and the other sides weapon was an AK. I came home and those that I faced didn't. The AK is sold around the world because it is cheap in price. Its not a cheap gun, just in price. I think the AR is a much better weapon in many ways. I was wounded 3 times, two on my first tour and once on my secound. I have always felt one of the reasons I am still here is because of my AR. My choice would be the AR with no reservations.

LOL WUT? Who uses the 47 besides third world countries? FAL's are and were issued to 90 different countries. You are mistaken. A FAL is a an awesome weapon, I love mine.

The reason most of the world uses them is the Soviets literally GAVE AWAY millions of them worldwide. Now that they're all good little capitalists, that's coming back to haunt them because other countries make clones cheaper than the real Russian ones and the market sucks.

Ron, my dad carried an M14, then an M16, then an M16A1 in '68-69, i understand where you're coming from. But past the mid 80s an QC problems were gone and in the last 10-15 yrs the knowledge base on what makes them run has exploded. There are straight out of the box rifles, tested in field conditions, that have shot 12-15,000 rounds without cleaning at all, just lube. That's not "simulated test conditions" but rifles run during shooting classes, crawling around on the ground, wind blown dust, etc, rain, mud, and a thousand+ rounds a day through them shot fast.

A well put together civvie AR (Colt, BCM, LMT, Noveske, LaRue, couple others) and even most of the middle-pack rifles (S&W, RRA, Bushmaster, Stag, etc) will run well if you do what you're supposed to do. Cleaning helps but if the wind blows (unlike some have attested....) the rifle won't jam.

Well stated.

Mebbe it is possible to teach this old dog a new trick or two... but I'll still end up with my thutty-thutty at the end of the day!

I am glad to hear that the AR has been improved... for our troops' sake.

I had my own doubts, but after running a combat assault course in a heavy rainstorm, covered in mud back in '96 in college ROTC, where the only thing causing the rifle to jam was blanks (not enough gas), and then doing more or less the same thing with live rounds under similar conditions where the rifle didn't hiccup at all, as well as dozens of friends who've been in combat with them (my one deployment, we never fired a shot)....they've definitely improved. Still helps to keep them clean, and anyone who doesn't take care of their rifle is an idiot, but a former coworker of mine when in Afghanistan went through a double ammo load (14 magazines, so approximately 400 rounds) in a single extended engagement over the course of a day and a half without any time to maintain his weapon, in some of the worst conditions out there.

His M4 ran fine.

I hunt with a levergun half the time, so I know what you mean. But reputation is the hardest thing to change in some people's minds.. 30+ years later the AR is still fighting it. You'd think as the issue weapon of the entire US armed forces, Canada, Denmark, Israel for the last 25 years (they're switching to their own bullpup, still in the process), several other smaller European countries, at one time Singapore, the Phillipines, the preferred weapon of the British Royal Marines (in the Canadian Diemaco variant, which is Colt Canada) and a lot of other places...... but people insist on believing what they "know" not what "is".

Victor, I'm not contesting your assessment of modern AR's, but I'd suspect that the fact that the Americans are supplying them might be a significant factor in our allies' choosing to buy the AR over others.

You're right about the reputation being hard to change. My assessment of the old AR was based upon seeing a couple of friends get hit while trying to clear jams. The guys in our unit were pretty obsessive about keeping our weapons clean, but not everybody was as conscientious. Had I been able to get my hands on the procurement clown who bought the cheap flake powder ammo, I'd probably have... well, never mind.

The Military Channel just aired the top 10 rifles of all time this week (in their opinion) and the AK 47 was #1, followed closely by the AR. I know that don't mean a whole lot. I have both and like both of them just fine myself.

Ron, you aren't the only one. My dad was a clean freak so he never had a problem with any of his M16s (16, 16A1 or 16A2, in 2 different wars).

But i also understand where you're coming from. As to allies using the M16, most of the European countries using them actually buy them from Canada (Diemaco) because they sell them the variants they want without any political BS like we'd pull. The Royal Marines, Dutch, Danish troops all use Canadian Diemacos.

The Israelis used the M16 for so long because it's light and it works, and they were getting funding from us, that had to be spent in the US (also why they have Humvees, Apaches, Bradleys, etc).... the stuff all works, and helps keep our military production lines open.

We had some stuff, that while never getting quite the M16 rep, if we got our hands on the designers, they would not be having a good day.

I also like the fact that I can get a functional AK for under $500 while a "good" AR that won't get you poo-pooed on by other AR purists will run right at a grand...

SO ONLY POOR ZOMBIES USE AKs?!?!?!

All i can say i have never seen a "my AK wont feed _______ ammo" I have seen on numerous occasions on this forum "My AR doesn't feed ______ ammo"

"On June 20, he murdered a man at his complex. Police intercepted Brown fleeing and Shaw fired almost 30 rounds from his AR-15 rifle. However, Shaw was struck in the top of his head by a one of Brown's bullets. He died instantly."

http://www.wfaa.com/news/crime/Report-de...-106805683.html

You should have specified whether or not your life was dependant on the choice.

If my life depends on choosing. I choose AK47.
If I just want the best gun for target shooting/hunting. I choose AR15.

OH, BTW. Read the new book called "The Gun". It gives you an appreciation for the AK47.

Metric tons of people put there lives on the line daily with AR platform. If my life depended on it, I would fight at night with my AR. My nighvision and silencer would own the fight, and neither are worth a darn on an AK. During the day the AR would reign supreme as well, with my HALO or YHM can the enemy would'nt have a clue where the bullets are coming from. In addition I could engage targets with my AR at 500 or more yards.

Unless you run a TWS dog leg rail (which we sell), your scope mounting options suck. Even if you had a scope the 7.63x39 is 250 yards at best. The open sights are terrible on an AK as well.

Dallas, I'd wager that at least as many people rely upon the AK as do the AR. And while I realize that my combat experiences are entirely different from what the troops are facing nowadays, from my experience, most real combat occurs at ranges significantly less than 500 yards (ours usually came down to under 25 yards, and often under 25 feet). Furthermore, when one needs to "reach out and touch someone" at extreme ranges, the AR isn't the ideal tool at any rate. That's why our snipers carried .308s rather than Stoners. And even at closer ranges, what constitutes "cover" against a 5.56 is only "concealment" against a heavier caliber. I'm not dissing the 5.56, either... just stating physical realities.

Yes, tons of people place their life in the hands of the AR15/M16 daily....in the US. And, tons of people place their life in the hands of the AR15/M16 daily by requirement and not by choice.

I'd bet my life savings and first born child that more people rely on the AK than the AR/M16. Think outside of the US. How many national flags does the AR15/M16 appear on? How many countries have 10yr olds walking around with AR15/M16s?

Stoner styled rifles are the new sniper rifles, the M40's an aging dinosaur. The SR25 (308 AR) is the prefered sniper weapon now. Nearly ALL the engagements in Iraq were closer quarters, but not in A stan, they are almost always at distance. Read Lone Survivor, Victory Point, and Not a Good Day to Die. You will gain a new perspective on the AR platform and its capabilities.

This can go on forever. AK is limited to 300 yards, its reliable and thats it. So many people and countries use it because its CHEAP, 20 bucks in Mogadishu. AR15 is a better weapon plaform period, across the board. We can go step by step, sights, range, optic options, suppressors etc.

We have a REAL AK47 and its an awesome bullet hose, but not nearly as effective. AK is spray and pray, uncontrollable on FA.

Me shooting our post sample for the first time

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YRpLWsv4Nk


Me shooting our post sample M16. Much, much more controllable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNgUIi3wJ5k


Summary:

AK ammo sucks, FMJ is not good against soft human/animal targets.

Suppressor, very effective in combat and hunting. AK makes a piss poor host for this.

Optics: AR no contest. PEQ/Nightvision or regular scope are all standard AR options. AK require a miracle.

Sights: AR no contest

Distance: again no contest

Hogs are an excellent training aid for day and night fighting. I have approximately 200 kills in last two years and am a member on every hog forum I can find and you will RARELY see pics of one taken with an AK.

Competitions? You will rarely see an AK. At my match two weeks ago there were 35 competitors and only one ran an ak. If they were remotely close to being as good, people would chose them. Especially with them being cheap.

Dallas, I think you've missed my point. I agree that the AR is a much more precise weapon, and that there are numerous accessories for it for which the AK has no equivalent. In virtually any civilian (and some, if not most combat) situations, the AR is the superior piece of equipment.

However, in a combat condition where engagement is not at extended ranges, and where protracted engagements are the norm, I would still pick the AK for a carry weapon, and a heavier caliber weapon for longer shots. (Kinda partial to the FN Fal, as it can be very accurate, yet is nearly as reliable under adverse conditions as the AK.) Might not be your choice, but it would be mine, based upon a couple tours' worth of personal experience.

Bottom line for me is that if I'm potentially going to be fighting nonstop for an extended engagement, I want something that isn't such a piece of precision equipment that sand or mud or excessive powder residue is likely to leave it incapacitated. And despite improvements to the design in the last 40 years, the M16 format remains, IMO, too precision an instrument to be preferred over the sloppy, cheap, inaccurate AK. "Inaccurate" is subjective, at any rate. When it gets really dicey and close, spray and pray becomes the order of the day. Not full-auto magazine dumping like in the movies, but not looking for bulls-eyes, either.

Did you watch those sand tests I posted earlier in this thread? The AR performed much better, even with the dust cover open. The AK chocked faster than the AR did. The AK durability advantage is an old gunshop tale, just like the coming weapon ban, and the 5000% percent ammo tax. During vietnam I bet they were more reliable, but not anymore. I can shoot a couple thousand rounds from any one of my ar's before they start to give me trouble. Then I can pop bolt out, wipe off and shoot for another thousand rounds. Cleaning an AR takes less than a minute.

I sent care packages to Seals, and am friends with a guy in the 20th special forces group/ have two cousins in the marines/ several friends in the marines and know of none that would switch there guns for an AK.

The ultimate AR vs. AK test is the beer bottle test. Take an AR magazine, fail to open a beer bottle with feed lips. Take an AK magazine, succesfully open a beer bottle with feed lips.

Id just get a bottle opener, but thats just how I roll...

I thought this forum was about hunting and firearms? Not beer drinking!