AR or AK?

spinmove_

Member
I just got done listening to the AK modcast where Jim Fuller and Shayne were on (great modcast as always, by the way) and one thing that was brought up, but not fully addressed was the concept of the AK has a different role than the AR. Now, I own an AR, but I admittedly don’t shoot it much and most definitely need some training, but could someone shed some light on what exactly those different roles are and why one might legitimately choose one from a pragmatic and utilitarian perspective over another apart from “I just like that platform”?

Genuinely curious. I’m not going to run out and immediately sell off my AR and extra lowers, but if the reasons make sense enough it could be something to consider.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

ccw1911

Newbie
If I was in a situation where I would be forced to use my rifle as a club I'd much rather have an AK, can't think of anything else.
 

RustyM92

Amateur
I think it mostly has to do with the individual user's prior experience, perceptions (either real or imaginary) about the platform, ammo price/availability, and maintenance.
 

Matt Landfair

Matt Six Actual
Staff member
Administrator
I've had both issued as duty weapons. I do prefer an AR but I would not feel under gunned by the right AK (my own).
 

shoobe01

Established
For military issue use, the old Soviet doctrine of mass fire still holds for most troops issued rifles. Set the gun to full auto, fire aimed short bursts (doctrinal goal is, IIRC, 8-10 bursts per magazine). This as opposed to the western shift back some decades ago to individual marksmanship (and very rare use of full auto or burst), evinced by simply everyone having a scope or RDS.

Stronger central control also means higher trajectory of the 7.62 M43 at least is less relevant as you should all be directed to the range you are firing at by the NCO I/C, and set the sights to that range. 5.45 also caught up to that, and you can buy 5.56 rifles also, but the west seems to also pride itself on making effective range tied to "point-blank" range, and no real need to hold over for normal combat ranges.

But... for most of the target audience, both guns are semi-auto only and used individually, so not sure what else they might mean.
 

spinmove_

Member
So it sounds like “the AK doesn’t necessarily do what an AR does, and the AR doesn’t necessarily do what an AK does” is more nuanced than “the AK is for ABC role(s) while the AR is for XYZ role(s)”.

So lets take the AR vs the AK-74 (as I think they’re more comparable to each other in 2018). Why would someone pick one over the other?

Why would I pick an AR over a 74? I can reach out further? More ergonomic? More options for customization? More commonality of parts in the US?

Why would I pick a 74 over an AR? Overall TCO? Better operation in some environments?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

RustyM92

Amateur
Why would I pick an AR over a 74? I can reach out further? More ergonomic? More options for customization? More commonality of parts in the US?

Why would I pick a 74 over an AR? Overall TCO? Better operation in some environments?

Pretty much nailed it, IMO.

AR over AK: AR has better aftermarket support, more configurable to user preference, better platform for optics, better iron sights (personal preference), shorter OAL (comparing carbine to standard AK-74), more affordable quality AR variants available, more affordable ammo and better quality selection.

AK over AR: less finicky in dusty/sandy environment, lesser need for user maintenance, less recoil impulse, 5.45 is a better penetrator of ceramic armor (per USMC FWIC), and until the supply of 7n6 dried up a couple years ago, it was one of the cheapest guns to feed.

As far as their roles, both were meant to be an individual combat weapon, however:
One was meant to be produced cheaply and en masse by countries of varying industrial capabilities for "Peoples Armies" consisting of everyone from child soldiers and illiterate peasants to doctors whose doctrine focused on overwhelming armor and infantry assault, versus
The other that was meant to be produced by several defense contractors (although not the case today) for a military consisting of members with a relatively higher baseline of education and training whose doctrine focused more on small unit tactics and combined arms.

That being said, in my opinion, the AR lends itself better in a non-military role because accurate, aimed fire is what it's meant to do. However, both fulfill their roles as individual combat weapons well. It comes down to the individual and which system they have the most confidence in and are willing to train themselves to.
 

Mack Bolan

Newbie
There's never been a better time to be an AK guy than now as far as aftermarket support is concerned. Krebs Custom, Rifle Dynamics, M13 Industries, JMAC Customs, Meridian Defense, Definitive Arms, RS Regulate, Magpul, just a few of the companies doing big things for the Kalashnikov rifle. The AK aftermarket is certainly nowhere near as big as the AR aftermarket, but we're finally in place where you have options. Don't like the Ultimak? RS Regulate has you covered for optics mounts. Don't have a side rail to use a RS Regulate on? Atterro Arms Bravo mount is another good option.

Must haves for me on a defensive rifle are....quality mags, white light, optic, and a sling. It's never been easier to outfit an AK with all of the above than now. We're not forced to screw chunks of 1913 rail onto wood handguards anymore to add a light or foregrip. Lots of rail choices, M4 stock adapters, MLOK, Keymod, all available for the AK.

The downside is AK's have never been higher priced than now. The days of $400 combloc surplus rifles are long gone. WASR's are $700 give or take, Arsenal's are $900-1500, VEPR's are drying up, Saiga's are hard to come by. If you're just getting into AK's, you're gonna have to pay to get a quality rifle. As long as you're not expecting to get a rifle for 2007 prices, you'll be alright.

If you were looking to get your first and only rifle in 2018, the AR is the more practical choice. I'm thankful to have a couple of each AR's and AK's.
 

hile

Amateur
I think if I jump into the AR game, it'll be via Rifle Dynamics, either buying one of their rifles, or more likely by taking the build class because I know next to nothing about AKs besides how to load and shoot one.
 

Mack Bolan

Newbie
I think if I jump into the AR game, it'll be via Rifle Dynamics, either buying one of their rifles, or more likely by taking the build class because I know next to nothing about AKs besides how to load and shoot one.

Do that and you'll be light years ahead of the curve.
 

Low_Speed_Notper8or

Regular Member
Pretty much nailed it, IMO.

AR over AK: AR has better aftermarket support, more configurable to user preference, better platform for optics, better iron sights (personal preference), shorter OAL (comparing carbine to standard AK-74), more affordable quality AR variants available, more affordable ammo and better quality selection.

AK over AR: less finicky in dusty/sandy environment, lesser need for user maintenance, less recoil impulse, 5.45 is a better penetrator of ceramic armor (per USMC FWIC), and until the supply of 7n6 dried up a couple years ago, it was one of the cheapest guns to feed.

As far as their roles, both were meant to be an individual combat weapon, however:
One was meant to be produced cheaply and en masse by countries of varying industrial capabilities for "Peoples Armies" consisting of everyone from child soldiers and illiterate peasants to doctors whose doctrine focused on overwhelming armor and infantry assault, versus
The other that was meant to be produced by several defense contractors (although not the case today) for a military consisting of members with a relatively higher baseline of education and training whose doctrine focused more on small unit tactics and combined arms.

That being said, in my opinion, the AR lends itself better in a non-military role because accurate, aimed fire is what it's meant to do. However, both fulfill their roles as individual combat weapons well. It comes down to the individual and which system they have the most confidence in and are willing to train themselves to.
TBH, you are comparing the US army of the 80s to say the Chinese in the 1950s.

Up until the 1970s when they ended the draft the quality of the US and soviet forces were much closer then you think, and especially so when you added in the conscript armies of our NATO allies.

Given the lack of optics and the fact that the baseline for an m14 and G3 in accuracy was 4-5MOA, and how a m16a1 will string shots when heating up actually the accuracy of a AK-74 was on par if not slightly better then what NATO was bringing to the fight. And the 74 is a gun that is quite well adopted to full auto burst fire and this is in line with their experience in ww2.

Instead of trying to overwhelm the enemy with a massed infantry and armor assult, instead the soviets were actually all about volume of fire and suppression and shock action to overwhelm and annilate the enemy in certain sectors, and like they learned from the Germans after blowing open a gap in the enemy line, exploit with tanks not just to the tactical/operational level like the Germans with blitzkrieg but into the enamies strategic depth.

Even today, a Russian combined arms battalion outguns most US army Brigades and for whatever their failings in economics, naval warfare, consumer goods, they can do land warfare. For the cost the AK-74 is an out-fucking-standing rifle

Bottom line a AR and modern AK-74 are pretty comparable, its just the AR is far far more availible here in the states for a better quality and at lower cost. And with the war on terror, we have far far better bullets.

In 1993 a AK-74 might of been a better gun, but with $800 milspec-ish ARs, Magpul Pmags, and things like mk318 SOST and 77 grain ammo etc the AR really is a better rifle here in 2018
 

RustyM92

Amateur
TBH, you are comparing the US army of the 80s to say the Chinese in the 1950s.

Up until the 1970s when they ended the draft the quality of the US and soviet forces were much closer then you think, and especially so when you added in the conscript armies of our NATO allies.

Given the lack of optics and the fact that the baseline for an m14 and G3 in accuracy was 4-5MOA, and how a m16a1 will string shots when heating up actually the accuracy of a AK-74 was on par if not slightly better then what NATO was bringing to the fight. And the 74 is a gun that is quite well adopted to full auto burst fire and this is in line with their experience in ww2.

Instead of trying to overwhelm the enemy with a massed infantry and armor assult, instead the soviets were actually all about volume of fire and suppression and shock action to overwhelm and annilate the enemy in certain sectors, and like they learned from the Germans after blowing open a gap in the enemy line, exploit with tanks not just to the tactical/operational level like the Germans with blitzkrieg but into the enamies strategic depth.

Even today, a Russian combined arms battalion outguns most US army Brigades and for whatever their failings in economics, naval warfare, consumer goods, they can do land warfare. For the cost the AK-74 is an out-fucking-standing rifle

Bottom line a AR and modern AK-74 are pretty comparable, its just the AR is far far more availible here in the states for a better quality and at lower cost. And with the war on terror, we have far far better bullets.

In 1993 a AK-74 might of been a better gun, but with $800 milspec-ish ARs, Magpul Pmags, and things like mk318 SOST and 77 grain ammo etc the AR really is a better rifle here in 2018

Doctrinally speaking, conventional warfare hasn't changed much since the 1980's, or for that matter 1950's. Conventional infantry units, at least in the United States, are still trained in maneuvers that resemble Cold War-era doctrine. Both rifles are products of that doctrine, and the separate perspectives towards which the United States and Soviet Union approached warfacre.
"Overwhelming assault by infantry and armor" is exactly what was meant from what you described above. I wasn't trying to get too into the weeds with it as that wouldn't answer the question of the OP. Allow me to clarify:
My comparison of the AK to the AR was to provide the context of their design and the spirit of the time to which they were introduced, and connect that to their adaptation to a civilian role today. That isn't taking into account the evolution of either platform or the difference in modern manufacturing. The question was why a civilian would choose one over the other today. I never said the AK was inferior to the AR, but as you said and as I agree, the AK was designed for "full auto burst fire" which is not a capability that most in civilian hands have. American soldiers, at least today, are trained to fire mostly on semi-automatic which is why I believe an AR fulfills its role in a civilian sense better than an AK. I agree, and I believe I even said, that both were relatively equal- and each with drawbacks of their own- and the real deciding factor in the context of the question asked is the shooter and the scenario at hand. I hope that clears up any misunderstanding.
 

rudukai13

Pro Internet User
Get a pws mk116 best of both worlds

This is the question I came to pose - Does a piston AR significantly close the gap reliability-wise enough to offset any advantage an AK platform might otherwise hold?

DI AR; ergonomics, aftermarket support, accuracy, availability

AK; reliability

Piston AR; ergonomics, aftermarket support, accuracy, availability, AND reliabity...?
 

Gypsy EDC

Regular Member
This is the question I came to pose - Does a piston AR significantly close the gap reliability-wise enough to offset any advantage an AK platform might otherwise hold?

DI AR; ergonomics, aftermarket support, accuracy, availability

AK; reliability

Piston AR; ergonomics, aftermarket support, accuracy, availability, AND reliabity...?

I "converted" to piston driven (and PWS specifically) apprx 30K rounds ago. Prior to that I had been running a DD 10.5", and a 16" RRA. My DD 10.5 had reliability issues out of the gate that increased significantly when dirty. Solution was having a machinist open the gas port and then installing an adjustable gas block (this issue has been resolved by DD by shipping 10.5 uppers with an enlarged gas port). The other issue was gas ring failure at around 3K. So no major horrible catastrophic failures to report. I do however believe that the long stroke piston system is superior in terms of longevity/ reliability. I have apprx 15k rounds on a PWS mk116mod0, 5k on a PWS MK107mod0 diablo, 5k on a PWSmk110mod1, 2k on a PWS MK118, and between 500-1000 rounds each on 4 different PWS MK114mod1 rifles with 0 issues.pws.png
 
Top