AR-15 vs. AK-47: Practical solutions to the tactical shooter

[Sailor]

I would define a tactical shooter as one who trains for combat situations. A hunter who uses a muzzle loader and trains to shoot that isn't training for combat. Make sense?

Nothing in your article talks about how each has performed in combat. Seems like your basing your opinions on range time, accessories, and the internet. That's ok, but if this is about "tactical" or combat arms, I want to know how each worked for you in that arena.

You can edit your original post and hit the enter key to put in some paragraphs. More people would read it fully.

Oh, and my experience with tapco has been that everything from them is crap, except the G2 trigger groups, and the muzzle break.

 

[dom1104]

Nothing in your article talks about how each has performed in combat. Seems like your basing your opinions on range time, accessories, and the internet. That's ok, but if this is about "tactical" or combat arms, I want to know how each worked for you in that arena.

You can edit your original post and hit the enter key to put in some paragraphs. More people would read it fully.

Oh, and my experience with tapco has been that everything from them is crap, except the G2 trigger groups, and the muzzle break.

AMEN on the tapco thing.

 

[starbreather]

Though Crowd, dang nothing like forum support.

 

[SmileDocHill]

In Microsoft word I had it double spaced and it was easy to read. When I transferred it over to here the format got messed up. I went back and edited it. Looks easier to read now.
If you didn't learn anything from it then you are either (1) pretty advanced in firearms or (2) you are not using your rifles "in the field" so to speak where you train and have real malfunctions. This was more for newbies or people that are interested in the tactical application of using the weapons in the field. Just take what you can get out of it. I felt led to write it because I have people ask me which is better all the time.

Microsoft Word really does mess with a document. To show an example, click on "Edit" in a post of yours where you cut and pasted content from a Word document. Then in the upper right corner of the edit window click on the boxed A/A ("Switch editor mode") to view all the behind the scenes stuff that MS Word adds to the document. It is amazing all the crap it adds.

I agree with others that it is not rich with new content but for a lot of people that come to INGO as total newbs it could be neat to read. I was a total newb not long ago and when everything you read is new information you gobble up everything you can get your eyes on.

 

[GlockWielder]

I appreciate the help folks! I went back in and put some spaces making the OP much easier to read.
As for how they've worked in combat, I could tell you what I've heard but I've never been in combat. I didn't feel qualified to touch on that though I suppose I could.
Interesting that some of you found that Tapco was crap. I've not used to much of their gear but I've had all positive so far.
I think that post was meant more for people who have never thought about shooting it a lot or people that are newbies.

 

[zenbruno]

I appreciate the help folks! I went back in and put some spaces making the OP much easier to read.
As for how they've worked in combat, I could tell you what I've heard but I've never been in combat. I didn't feel qualified to touch on that though I suppose I could.
Interesting that some of you found that Tapco was crap. I've not used to much of their gear but I've had all positive so far.
I think that post was meant more for people who have never thought about shooting it a lot or people that are newbies.

I don't know what this says about me that I've now skimmed through your review twice! But as an example, I think you could still edit out most of your commentary about internal ballistics based on your forensics class. That's more a function of caliber, powder charge and specific bullet design than it is of which AR barrel the round travelled through. (This is assuming similar fps off the chronograph, of course.)

But all in all, I think you're to be commended for investing some time and effort into your post! Cumulatively, the quality of any message board is in large part a reflection of the quality of the posts.

 

[MilitaryArms]

I believe a more fitting comparison would be the AK74 and the AR15.

Regarding the 2 second reload... how much importance do you place on a 2 second reload? How many combat vets or others who have survived a gun fight have you talked to who said a 2 second reload saved their life? I've asked a lot of people and I've yet to find a single person who said a lightening fast Magpul reload saved their life. Ask around, see what people say.

I think the AK is misunderstood by many American shooters.

The sights, which many westerners criticize, are actually superior for quick target acquisition in a wide variety of lighting conditions. They're not suited for extreme precision, the aperture sight does have an advantage there. Fighting rifles for quite some time have used sights in a similar configuration to the AK's for a reason.

Aperture sights are a throw back to the days when modern rifles first came on the scene and optimistic military folk gave them adjustments for 1200 yards/meters or more. As data rolled in from AAR's, it was learned that fights typically took place at ranges far shorter than 1000 or more yards/meters. They learned that most fights took place at 300 yards or less. Once this was understood, things like the Fedorov and StG44 came on the scene. These rifles were optimized for the types of combat most troops were likely to encounter. These weapons employed sights similar to those currently found on the AK, among other things. The rear sight being forward and open allow for quick sighting even with both eyes open.

The safety of the AK was designed to be big and easy to manipulate even with gloves on. The AK wasn't designed to have the safety manipulated a thousand times every 10 minutes while on the range. The whole "flip, bang, flip, bang, flip, bang..." phenomenon came about with the AR15. With the AK you flip the safety off when you're in harms way and you leave it off. Your finger is off the trigger, much like rifles of past. When the threat is gone, the safety is put in the on position. No need to do the whole "flip, bang" thing.

The charging handle on the AK is really no different than the charging handle found on the "greatest battle implement ever designed". People love their Garand's, M1A's, M1 Carbines, etc. and you rarely hear complaints about being too slow to make ready or to reload. Why do people then think the AK is so problematic?

Accuracy is pretty much a wash between the AK74 and the M4. You can get 2"-3" out of either of them using military ball. Both the M4 and the AK74 have roughly 14" sight radius's.

The AK has many 3rd party products out there to customize it for individual tastes. Rails, sights, muzzle devices, stocks, etc. are all over the place and more come to market every day it seems.

In the end I think both rifles are extremely capable. I started off being an AR guy but over the last few years have moved to the AK. I still like and appreciate both, but for me the AK is the better general purpose rifle.

 

[leftsock]

Wow, I’m 10 pages into this and I haven’t stopped writing since I started. That’s the end of this! I hope you enjoyed.

TLDR!

Welcome to the series of tubes we call the Interweb. If you want people to read what you write, keep it around three concise paragraphs.

 

[jbombelli]

I repped the OP for putting in the effort to actually type all that out.

 

[IndianaResident]

I appreciate the OP's polite responses to what amounts to a bunch of hostile comments for a page and a half.

Good grief, people, haven't we talked about chasing off new members before?



[edit] I'm not talking about the requests for paragraphs, unless it was rudely delivered.

 

[GlockWielder]

I always see negative posts on forums. I think it chases a lot of people off. I have left two forums just from the garbage from other people arguing back and forth over their ego in purchases.

I appreciate the insight and experience as quoted from "full-auto". Personally, I think the safety is fine on an AK, however, I like my Glock and it has no safety. Usually on my AR I do not use the safety ever unless it is on my person hanging from my sling, in my car chambered, or I'm handing it to my friend for him to shoot which in most cases it is unloaded because I just shot it (duh). For people who like to be overly redundant with safety, the AR is just superior in my opinion (look out there that is just my opinion!)

"full-auto", I am an advocate for fast reloads because if you aren't firing, you better be moving. Sometimes you can't move because you are in cover. I can load my AR faster than an AK (which is better for me). I think it comes down to personal preference. I can't imagine anyone thinking that longer reloads are in any case better. I do agree with you that it may not be a fight changing factor though.

I write until I prove my points. It just drives me nuts when I see two sentence replies or posts. That's why it happened to be long.

Regarding the other posts on here, I think the argument is best suited for the AK74 to the AR15. Makes more sense to me. As for the OP and the ballistics, I do agree that it can very much so differ and deviate with different bullets and different recipes. But generally speaking (always exceptions with the words in general!), the .223 performs differently than the 7.62 x 39mm. Correct?
Take care!