One of my old favorite: MN v. AK v. AR

[Aristocles]

Looks a reasonable place to post this...

Written by Head of the old Headsbunker.com, also known as "Ezra Coli" on the various message boards.

There's an ever present, unending debate over which is best, ARs or AKs, raging across the internet and in gun shops every day sending bile and bitter insults spewing both ways. This debate has turned fathers against sons, best friends against one another, and........well you get the point.

The author is of the opinion that there are of course pros and cons to each family of rifle, and I refuse to engage in what is "best". As one who loves them all, especially the AK and AR series, I thought I'd pass on some of the knowledge I have gained over the years concerning these wildly different weapons. As a bonus, I'll toss in my knowledge of another favorite family of weapons at the Bunker, just because they are very popular these days and I often ramble about them.

So, here, for the aid of those hammering one another in the debate, is some unbiased, non-slanted, untainted raw knowledge about the AK, the AR, and the Mosin Nagant.

http://7.62x54r.net/MosinID/MosinHumor.htm

[Charles Owlen Picket]

I always thought of them as two different animals and couldn't compare them. Seeming design and execution modalities were decidedly different. One high tech one low, one a 30 the other a 22...and one undergoing constant innovation while the other remaining basically unchanged. I really never compared them. Imagine a teenage girl in a very short skirt and an overworked nurse: both of great value in their specific arenas. :D

Would want anyone to think I didn't like nurses...

My point is that they are just tools and (just my personal thing) they are like looking in your stuff box and seeing a crescent wench and one of those new do everything wrenches at Home Depot. Maybe the teenage girl with the tiny skirt was a better image...

[Rbick]

Well guys, I would have to go with my AR on this one. I own both a Rock River Arms AR-15 and a Romanian CAI AK-47 w/ folding stock. The reason for this would be the versatility of the AR. I've put several types of optics on it, and the Picatinny hand rail makes adding accessories very easy. There are accessories for the AK, but they are not as readily available or easy to put on. I currently have a Leupold CQM optic mounted on my AR, a simply amazing optic to use.

The accuracy of the AR is something to be mentioned as well. I spotted my buddy as he fired accurately on a target 600y away. The target was smaller than an average man. Mind you he had the 3 power scope. The furthest I can reach out with my AK is 250y, and then the bullets seem to have a mind of their own. I realize this doesn't hold true for all AKs, as there are custom made models out there that are just as accurate, but I'm speaking in generalities as MOST AKs are made from cheap stamped parts out of a factory. However, I will discuss the ballistics of both rounds.

On the topic of ballistics, I almost would prefer the AK, as it has a much heavier round with a lot of knock down power. The 5.56x45mm is too small and fast, usually just punching through your target. It was actually frustrating watching people get hit multiple times by our 5.56 and just running away. When this round was designed, I think the idea was to wound your enemy, causing two more enemy soldiers being needed to carry him to safety. Problem is, with our current conflict, the enemy doesn't care if the other guy dies. And if your in close quarters, wounding a guy just isn't going to do the job. It is effective however, if you have the right type of ammunition (HP or JHP) or your targets have body armor. Only problem is the Geneva convention doesn't allow us to use HP in combat, so we use a type of sabot round. Basically its a rod jacketed in a casing that is meant for defeating body armor. In my opinion, I think we should all switch to the .308 (7.62x51mm) chambered ARs. The reason being superior ballistics and great knock down power.

After 400y, the 7.62x39mm drops A LOT. Although the 5.56 is a smaller bullet, its ballistics are pretty solid. For example, a 5.56 will drop about 50 inches at 500 yards as compared to a 7.62x39 will drop about 100 :eek: Talking about bleeding energy fast. This is why I love the 7.62x51 (.308) round. Basically the same round with lots more powder behind it. The ARs available in this caliber are my idea of a wet dream :)

The AK is very resilient against environmental factors. When I got my AK, it was rusty, beat to shit, and clearly neglected. It didn't matter, it fired every time, never jamming. An AR in this condition would have never worked. I have since cleaned it and it is well maintained. This is the issue that has come up with ARs. My philosophy is take care of your gun, and it will take care of you. This can be said about the AR. I recall my first experiences with one being in basic training. I had just gotten done dragging it through a river, through mud , dirt, and sand, and it still fired time. I was surprised to say the least. The difference here is where with an AK, you wouldn't have to clean it afterwards (although you probably should) and it would still fire. Whereas with the AR, you would need to clean it, or it wouldn't work. Still, I believe strongly in guns being maintained.

So in short, these are my major reasons for preferring the AR. Not to say the AK isn't an excellent weapon, because it most definitely is just that. The 7.62x51mm chambered AR over the 5.56x45 is preferred specifically. It overcomes the shortcomings on the 5.56 in ballistics and still carries all the benefits of the AR. The only thing is that I might be a little worried about firing a .308 is close quarters. I don't think it would be too much of a problem...

[Charles Owlen Picket]

So you like the young, nubile teenager; shirt skirt and all.... Her story is perhaps one of the most unique (or infamous) in the history of military armament procurement. There are a lot of folks today that point to the A2 and it's descendants (M4, etc) as being one of the most reliable and accurate military weapons ever made. I was around for the A1 when I was a young man and it certainly wasn't as accurate as the present A2. But I must interject that it would run rings around the Russian SKS which it was being compared to.

Generally we could predict about 2-4MOA from a issue A1 rifle. Today the issue rifle will actually preform a 1MOA with issue GI ammo and continue (from prone). I shot one 2 weeks ago and, iron sites and all, did as well. However, I can fucking well shoot and have for more than 30yrs. I feel very comfortable with a rifle from prone.

It was Kennedy's wiz kids that rammed the Stoner rifle home and did so much too quickly for Quartermaster services in each branch to keep pace. It was the combination of that and bean-counters in Defense that attempted to get the rifle to shoot ball type powder and issue no cleaning kits during an active field engagement. I did my homework on that and it's not a myth. Although an active attempt to brand it a myth was attempted!
Which in turn, resulted in significant casualties from stoppages in the field. This was one of the most alarming stories of weapons development in the history of the US. And the Stoner-type rifle is actually physical proof of the need to innovate from field experience. Many people believe it will actually continue to improve! Most people attached to Defense see alterations in issue ammo as being the next step in the military's desire to make the rifle into a "system". Each Stoner-type rifle is a small monument to a very interesting, if not alarming, portion of American history.

[Rbick]

Yeah I like the little school girl outfit. I think I'll buy my wife one for valentines day ;).

I remember back in middle school my 8th grade teacher would talk about the old A1. He was drafted back in Vietnam and had tons of stories. He would always complain about the A1 and how crappy it was. No forward assist, jammed frequently, a bitch to clean. He even said that while they were doing bayonet practice, he snapped the barrel right off on the dummy. Had I been in nam at the time, I probably would have picked up an AK and just used that. Today is a different story. I loved my M4 while I was in service.

Anyway, its incredible to see how far the AR has come since its first manufacture back in the late 40s (I think). Next to the AK, it is probably one of the most widely used and known weapons.

[Aristocles]

Personally, I'll go off the grid and take my K31... no reason, I just like it. :)

However, I just loved the comic aspect of the "comparison". I found myself nodding my head and laughing aloud the first time I read it.

[Anformula]

This issue, as you guys know, is far deeper than the individual merits of the guns. These weapons have become symbols: Capitalism vs Communisim, the United States vs Islamic Fascism, Contra vs Sandinista......it goes back many years.

Both have their bad and good points as battlefield implements for killing. You could go on and on about that, but at the end of the day if it was me wallowing in the mud with a rifle that my life depended on, and I needed it to go bang to save my life or my buddie's life, I would probably choose the AK. Yes, it is much less accurate. But when one accounts for the difficulty of precise marksmanship under combat conditions, the AK is more than accurate enough.

BUT, as a "toy"....(let's face it that's what these guns mainly are to many of us) the AR wins hands down. It seems every day there is a new plethora of absolutely totally cool gadgets that can be clamped onto an AR that has the Picatinny rail space available. The sky is the limit, be they day lasers, night lasers, red not sights, scopes, flip up iron sights, flashlights. I could spend all my disposable income for the next year in the Surefire catalog alone.....

So say what you will, the AR definitely wins as the sexiest weapon.....:p

[Rbick]

True that. But I have been in the situation where I needed the AR to perform and to be accurate, and it did just that. You'd be surprised how many chances you get at accurate shots in combat, unless your really getting rammed up the ass by a force much larger than your own, which didn't happened much over there. :D

But over all, I prefer my MK-48 medium machine gun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mk_48_Mod_0_machine_gun). My 48 and I had some good times together in the sand box, many cold nights. Although she was much heavier than most of my buddies weapons, as they carried the M4 or Mk46, I still loved to carry that bitch around. It made me feel sexy. Nothing like firing 850 rpm of 7.62x51mm rounds down range from the standing position, and clearing rooms for that matter. Ah the memories :) Definitely my favorite machine gun, and gun in general. It has the same type of picatinny rails that the ARs do. I mounted an EO Tech sight (http://www.eotech-inc.com/product.php?id=3&cat=1) on there and an infared laser. Sorry, I'll stop now :o

[Charles Owlen Picket]

To answer what may be a visual question...Yes, you ARE bending her over when you clean an AR-type rifle. And pulling the bolt carrier and charging handle for cleaning is playing with her panties. Call em a sick fuck if you like but I slept with her in my formative years. ....I have a great many of these, "visuals"....

[blutorlz3]

Well, from my personal experience with all the three aforementioned firearms the Mosin Nagant wins. In my opinion the AR is a very accurate firearm but lacks the power of a AK, while the AK lacks the accuracy. The reason I say the Mosin Nagant is best is its; power, accuracy, distance, and ease of maintenance. Other than the AK there are few firearms that can be maintained as easy as the Mosin. The problem with AK's is that there are so few foreigner manufactured ones coming in the way they were meant to be made, such as the Saiga or the Vepr.

The thing I don't like about the AK vs AR conversation is that the comparisons are not even fair. Most of the AR guys are going out and buying a 1000$ to 1500$ AR and they compare it to a 300$ Wasr or some other cheap clone. what I think needs to be done is comparing a Vepr/Saiga to a comparable priced AR variant .

[Charles Owlen Picket]

Why the introduction of a bolt gun? Would a Mauser or a Springfield or a Enfield be just as out in left field?

[Rbick]

Yeah that is kind of random. From a sniping standpoint, I guess it would be ok to have a nice bold action, as they tend to be more accurate at long distances. But its hard to compare two automatic rifles with a bolt action...

The topic of this thread is rather vague though, so its hard to tell in what ways people are comparing the weapons. It doesn't specify the purpose for which you are chosing your weapon. For example, one person may want an AK for combat but an AR for target shooting. Over all, I would still go with the .308 AR :) (unless there was a MK-48 available)

[Charles Owlen Picket]

ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THE CONCEPT HERE OF THE "MAIN BATTLE RIFLE"?

I once had a FAL (FN) - that was a fair piece out to about 600. It was a British weapon and not inexpensive to manufacture. I could not see equipping an army with them as they did NOT seem either GI proof or easily repairable in the field. Yet they are still around and some non-NATO countries field them as main battle rifles.

[blutorlz3]

Charles Owlen Picket
you ask why I introduced a blot gun if you were to read the title "MN v. AK v. AR" you would of understood. MN stands for Mosin Nagant, which is in the title so I'm not the one who actually introduced bolt guns into this conversation.

MN v. AK v. AR means Mosin Nagant v. Avtomat Kalashnikova v. AR.

[Anformula]

I agree about the usefulness of the full power .308 round. It has sort of fallen out of favor as a general use cartridge for military rifles, but it brings with it abilities the .223 definitely does not have. Like the capability to attack lightly armored vehicles for example. I witnessed an incident where .223 rounds were deflected/fragmented by a standard car windshield....

That definitely would not happen with a .308.

[ChippedHammer]

Fuck it, just buy all three :)

I prefer the AK, I would rather have the bigger round and a weapon I can fix with a stone.

[Charles Owlen Picket]

I sort of got that part about MN representing Mosin Nagant. I still wonder why we include one bolt weapon in the midst of two self loaders? Are we indeed, talking about main battle rifles of various eras or is this an arbitrary comparison? And if so, is the purpose to look at Warsaw Pact nations vs NATO or simply US? I just wanted to understand the reasoning here.

[TJTay89]

I sort of got that part about MN representing Mosin Nagant. I still wonder why we include one bolt weapon in the midst of two self loaders? Are we indeed, talking about main battle rifles of various eras or is this an arbitrary comparison? And if so, is the purpose to look at Warsaw Pact nations vs NATO or simply US? I just wanted to understand the reasoning here.

I think the whole MN vs. AK vs. AR goes on because these rifles have all have large fanboy populations. I guess I understand the AK vs. AR, but I do get lost with why the MN is being compared when it isn't even from the same period or type of weapon (Lee Engfield vs. MN would make more sense to me).

That being said, I like the MN. It is nice to fear the recoil and break your hand when you try to open the chamber after you shoot five rounds of milsurp :rolleyes:. I guess that is what you get for spending $80 on a rifle though? I hear that some of the Finnish MN are really nice but now people have caught on to that so they are getting harder to find at the low prices of yesteryear.

[Anformula]

As a general use rifle that covers "all the bases", how can you really argue against the M-14/M-1A rifles? They combine a full power round with complete field proven durability and reliability, and with a little tweaking, sniper grade accuracy.....

Their only disadvantage is relatively high weight.

[alphaman]

I personally would go with the AR for two reasons. One, it is much more accurate. Two, it uses NATO ammunition, and if our beloved government ever decides the Second Amendment only applies to our military and law enforcement, NATO ammo would be more available than civilian ammo.

[LuzRD]

AK-47=designed to be used in full auto with the ability to fire in semi auto.
M-16=designed to be used in semi auto with the ability to fire full auto/burst.

The message ive gotten from threads on various sites is that the rejection criterion for AK-47's is 4moa. While it is certainly not a tack driver, it just requires a different fight style (get CLOSER!! haha).

Now obviously these comparison threads are always going to be apples and oranges "my AR is more accurate" vs. "my AK is more reliable" etc...

I would be hard pressed to choose the "best" rifle. There are far too many circumstances which would show favor to EITHER rifle. Both are infamous, masterpieces of design in their own right, and dead sexy!

For the sake of conversation, if we are comparing the pure rifle (no super-ninjafied gadgets). I would likely choose an AK-47 for service.