>Didn’t Stoner use a gas piston in his modular weapon system (which survives in a form today as the Robarm 96?)

>Wouldn’t JMB tag in his prodigy at FN, Saive? The guy who designed the FN-49, and IIRC

The AR was designed to be easy for novice shooters to use accurately. It is loud, but its weight and recoil are minimal. Yes, the AK throws a heavier slug, but there is a price to be paid for that.

AR variants are easier for women to use and practice with – which means means more accuracy when it counts.

Some may say this is part of ergonomics, but ease of shooting is a little different. It isn’t about location of the safety catch or the magazine well – it’s about how easy and therefore how often people will use it.

The AR wins hands down here.

Time once again for the (usually) weekly Carnival of Cordite! Let’s jump right in, shall we? * * * First and foremost, we have the ongoing debacle in New Orleans: Josh’s Weblog reviews the situation for us here. More from

Well, you can carry 120 rds for a battle load in 7.62X51 as opposed to 200 in 5.56X45. So, shoot a little less crowd-pleasing hosepipe style with your M1A or HK-91, WHICH YOU SHOULD HAVE AS YOUR SHTF RIFLE IN PLACE OF EITHER ONE OF THESE COMPROMISE RIFLES, and weight won’t be an issue in the ammo dept.

Seriously, accuracy is a bit over rated. In a match sub MOA is good. When it counts3 to 4 MOA is all you’ll ever need & it’s usually better than most folks can shoot off the bench anyway. The stopping power – I’d have called that for the AK. Despite the AR-10’s most AR’s are in the poodle shooting 5.56×45. I think that’d have knocked it down to AR- 4 AK- 4 Draws- 2. The AR’s sights are real damn good, but I have heard (though not tried for myself) of some decent receiver sights for the AK. I think with an AK so fitted it’d edge out the AR. But then gain I’m a bit biased (I know; it’s a shocker) & what I’d look for in such a platform would hinge on decent accuracy (less than 4 MOA) & mucho reliability. The other things can be worked with or around (ergonmics, sights, etc…). Then again I would cheat if I could & grab a Garand or perhaps a BM-59. When ya gonna have the Garand v anything else death match?

What would it take to fix the “deficencies” in the AK, and the AR?

Well, the AR’s decently simple, I think. Go back to a piston-design (several aftermarkets are available, for instance) instead of the direct gas impingment, and rechamber.

And lose some weight, somewhere. I picked up an AR at the range one time that was heavier than my M1A. If I have to carry 10 pounds, I want 7.62×51, dammit.

AK? Well, most of it’s “shortcomings” I don’t mind so much, the mag release is probably the biggest. The safety, perhaps, I see that there’s a new add in, gives you a right-thumb control (when I looked at my AK, I didn’t know why they didn’t have that out already). Caliber is good.

Sights would probably be the single best upgrade.

So, the AK needs ergonomic upgrades, the AR needs reliability upgrades. .. I’d say that’s a fair comparision, how do you weight those?

If I want a gun I can shoot accurately at 600 yards, I’ll take a bolt-action rifle. If I want a battle rifle that’ll work out to 100 yards even if I’ve stored it in my swimming pool, I’ll take an AK.

I own neither; in fact, the only “assault rifle” that I own is an M1 carbine (!) with a cracked receiver (!!!). The AK is on the short list of guns to get; the AR is on the longer list. Somewhere after lever-action .357 Magnum rifle and my third .357 Magnum pistol (damn but I *DO* love that round).

If I’m shooting a 3 gun match and had to choose between the 2 I’d go with the AR. If I needed to rely on a weapon to save my life, with no gaurantee I could keep it clean, I’d go with the AK. Also, the AK makes a splendid car gun – #1, if my car is broken into, I’m out about $300. If my AR was stolen, that’s a good $1600 down the drain. Also, in Texas, the nasty hot summers will evaporate pretty much any oil you lube with. As you pointed out, not so good a plan for an AR. It has no effect on the AK.

I once SO’d a shooter in a 3 gun match shooting an AK. He shot the course of fire, and when unloading and showing clear, we noted a rattle that shouldn’t be there. We investigated everything possible, and finally pulled the top off the AK. Inside were two, count em two live rounds that did not impede the rifle’s abilty to finish the COF.

Needless to say, I was impressed.

Great points!

Not “Tolerances” – Clearances! I hear this a million time a day in the gun store, and it drives me bonkers. Go talk to a machinist, and ask the difference.

The modern AK47 variants are held to the same tolerances of any current production military firearm. The tolerances are measured in hundred parts of an inch, for NASA, they are measured in much smaller parts. The tolerances of any manufactured part refers to how many hundreths, thousanths, billionths or what have you, the part may vary from the specification, before it is out of spec.

A modern AK47 will be manufactured to the same tolerances as any current production military firearm – the clearances that are built into the gun is where they gain their reputation for reliability when full of gunk- in short, the gun was designed with clearances, spaces in the gun where sand, mud, ice, grit or even in extreme cases, crushed fired casings could nestle out of the way, hopefully without adversely affecting the functioning of the firearm. The AK design has more “clearance” for crud in the gun than the AR15.

And I prefer the AR15 for all purposes, because I know how to clean a gun – I’m just tired of seeing “tolerances” in the same sentence as “legendary AK reliability”, if for no other reason, than that I’ve seen them jam near as often as the M16 family. Anything with more than one part can fail to work, AKs do not defy the laws of reality.

Alston.

I currently only have an AK-style in my safe. I don’t like the AR’s. I’ve shot ‘em. They’re heavy as hell for what you get (if I’m going to shoot 5.56, I think a Kel-tec might be the way to go – light, simple (gas piston!), and lots cheaper.

I’ve also upgraded the AK considerably – Ultimak, Red Star Trigger (no slap, great to adjust) – and a “AR-style” pistol grip – and with all of that, I’ve got less than $600 in the gun.

Which leaves $300 or so to the nearest “stock” AR.. to buy ammo.

I’ve been considering getting a VEPR, especially with a 20″ barrel – I’d prefer that from a sound (to the shooter) perspective). I’ve got a SAR-1, and it’s … well, accurate enough. With Winchester Hunting ammo, last year, and a $30 red dot on the ultimak, and 10 round went into a “head” on the silouette that happened to be at the range – which was under the 4 MOA of the dot. Minute of Person is all that you need.

The sights are the only “real” problem that I know of, especially if you upgrade (or tune up) the trigger (and the stock AR trggers I’ve seen weren’t anything to write home about).

I wouldn’t mind an AR, in 6.8, or something more decent – but that gas system still gives me the heebies.

Ex-co-worker had been SF for many years, and he *loved* the AR. I commented on the lack of reliability “Oh, yeah, if you’re a dumbass” he’d say. “Trick is, whenever you stop for anything, you oil it, if you’re stopping for more than 20 minutes, give it a quick once-over, and clean it daily” “Uh, how often would you do that for an AK?” “Shit, you don’t clean those, jsut shoot them a couple times, they’re good to go”

He didn’t understand why I’d lose the accuracy (enough for a deer last season), and take the reliability (and the far-more-effective) cartridge.

Anyway, I would call it 5-4 under your chart though I really couldn’t care less about swag and think reliability and stopping power need to count for more.

Weighted I would rank them as follows

Design (x2) – AK
Reliability (x3) – AK
Stopping power (x3) – AK
Accesories – AR
Price (x2) – AK
Accuracy (x3) -AR
Ergonomics – AR
Sights (x2) – AR
Trigger pull (this is easy enough to fix) – AR

Final (weighted) tally –

AK: 10
AR: 8

You may not have wanted to get that detailed in your comparison, but I think it is critical.