Re: Who owns what? AK vs AR
Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2010 12:12 am
Right now, I'm in the middle of my first AR build. It's only a complete lower at this point, but as far as the federal government is concerned, it counts as a rifle. I should have it completed relatively soon.
I don't yet own any AK variants, so my vote is for AR only.
I'm of two minds here, as both the AR and AK platforms have their own positives:
They AK definitely wins on ballistic power. 7.62x39 is simply a much heavier-hitting round.
7.62x39 ammo is cheap. The AK wins for the availability of cheap ammo.
The AKs are known for being reliable, even when abused.
The AR platform is an inherently accurate platform. It is a more precisely-engineered platform, and its accuracy reflects this.
For reloaders, .223 is a much easier round to find and recycle components for. When making the decision between AK and AR, I found it very difficult to find boxer-primed and brass-cased ammo in 7.62x39. Brass/boxer 7.62x39 is the exception to the norm, somewhat difficult to find, and relatively expensive. For .223, boxer/brass is the norm, can be found relatively inexpensively pretty much anywhere you can find ammo, and military once-fired brass is very easy and inexpensive to come by. Bullets are cheaper. There is a large variety of weights and types, and there is a larger pool of reloading data to work with.
The AR platform makes customization simpler with a larger variety of options. There are several reasons for this: The design of the AR lends itself to easy modification and parts swap. Federal regulations severely restrict the availability of aftermarket parts and the ability to customize or mix & match parts on the AK platform to due to import restrictions and modification rules; the AR is US-made and therefore not subject to these restrictions.
All of that said, here are my specific reasons why I chose the AR:
Precision
The AR is undoubtedly the winner when it comes to accuracy. The AR platform is used in 600yd service rifle competitions. I've never heard of anyone shooting an AK variant at that range, and it certainly isn't commonplace in the event that it does occur.
Reloading Component Availability
I'm a reloader, so my ability to reload for my guns is important to me. .223 is simply very easy to find components for, and they're cheap. There is a huge selection of bullets, powder, and load data for this round, and this lets me tune my loads to my needs and preferences.
The Ability To Build & Customize
One of the things that has bothered me in the past about the AR is the "flimsiness", from my perception. I started shooting on Mosin-Nagants, and the durability of such a gun plays to my sensibilities. A stock AR with its plastic parts and light construction are the opposite of what I tend to look for in a firearm. I'm not one for tacticooling out my guns. Most of that stuff is a big waste of money to me. However, building an AR myself allows me to "stout up" my rifle to my desired specifications, even though it is a carbine. Once my rifle is built, it will have a heavy 16" barrel and a machined aluminum free-floating handguard (instead of the stock plastic one clamped onto the barrel). Varying lengths, weight, twist rate, and material construction of barrels are widely available for the AR platform, while the choice in AK barrels is pretty static.
Ergonomics
The AR platform manual of arms makes more sense to me, and operating the weapon is made to be done without changing right-hand grip or moving the gun around. Magazines drop freely with the push of the index finger, and a new magazine is simply pushed upwards until it clicks. Dropping the mag in an AK involves pushing a lever with your off hand, then pulling the mag at the same time with the same hand. Putting it back in means putting it in at an angle on a catch, then tilting it rearward. The AR has a bolt catch to hold the bolt open automatically when the magazine is empty after the last round has fired, or can be engaged manually. The AK has no such feature, at least not without an add-on. The safety on an AR is thumb-operated and can be manipulated without a change in grip or movement of the trigger finger, while the AK safety requires the use of the index finger and a slight change in grip. An adjustable telescoping stock is a normal feature for A4 variants, and any AR can be built up with one (as is the case with mine). This is an aftermarket add-on for the AK, and changing this on an AK import means that you legally have to change out several other parts in the process. You can get as many handguards/forestocks for the AR as the day is long, but choice is relatively limited on the AK, due to both construction and general availability of aftermarket parts.
Economics
Had I gone with the AK, I would have purchased the gun outright. AK variants run around $450 and up, from what I've found. A milled-receiver AK (if you can still find one) is considerably more expensive. Building my AR from parts means that I can go in increments of around $100-$250 every couple of weeks and end up with a complete gun after a few months, spreading the cost over time. Yes, it is more money in the long run (for the basics, anyway), but money is saved while retaining quality of equipment, and that sort of option isn't really viable when considering the AK.
This is not to disparage the AK, as it certainly has its advantages. They are cheaper to get into, and are certainly common the world over. I wouldn't mind having one, but I had to decide between the two, and the AR was better for my purposes considering the factors unique to me.
I don't yet own any AK variants, so my vote is for AR only.
I'm of two minds here, as both the AR and AK platforms have their own positives:
They AK definitely wins on ballistic power. 7.62x39 is simply a much heavier-hitting round.
7.62x39 ammo is cheap. The AK wins for the availability of cheap ammo.
The AKs are known for being reliable, even when abused.
The AR platform is an inherently accurate platform. It is a more precisely-engineered platform, and its accuracy reflects this.
For reloaders, .223 is a much easier round to find and recycle components for. When making the decision between AK and AR, I found it very difficult to find boxer-primed and brass-cased ammo in 7.62x39. Brass/boxer 7.62x39 is the exception to the norm, somewhat difficult to find, and relatively expensive. For .223, boxer/brass is the norm, can be found relatively inexpensively pretty much anywhere you can find ammo, and military once-fired brass is very easy and inexpensive to come by. Bullets are cheaper. There is a large variety of weights and types, and there is a larger pool of reloading data to work with.
The AR platform makes customization simpler with a larger variety of options. There are several reasons for this: The design of the AR lends itself to easy modification and parts swap. Federal regulations severely restrict the availability of aftermarket parts and the ability to customize or mix & match parts on the AK platform to due to import restrictions and modification rules; the AR is US-made and therefore not subject to these restrictions.
All of that said, here are my specific reasons why I chose the AR:
Precision
The AR is undoubtedly the winner when it comes to accuracy. The AR platform is used in 600yd service rifle competitions. I've never heard of anyone shooting an AK variant at that range, and it certainly isn't commonplace in the event that it does occur.
Reloading Component Availability
I'm a reloader, so my ability to reload for my guns is important to me. .223 is simply very easy to find components for, and they're cheap. There is a huge selection of bullets, powder, and load data for this round, and this lets me tune my loads to my needs and preferences.
The Ability To Build & Customize
One of the things that has bothered me in the past about the AR is the "flimsiness", from my perception. I started shooting on Mosin-Nagants, and the durability of such a gun plays to my sensibilities. A stock AR with its plastic parts and light construction are the opposite of what I tend to look for in a firearm. I'm not one for tacticooling out my guns. Most of that stuff is a big waste of money to me. However, building an AR myself allows me to "stout up" my rifle to my desired specifications, even though it is a carbine. Once my rifle is built, it will have a heavy 16" barrel and a machined aluminum free-floating handguard (instead of the stock plastic one clamped onto the barrel). Varying lengths, weight, twist rate, and material construction of barrels are widely available for the AR platform, while the choice in AK barrels is pretty static.
Ergonomics
The AR platform manual of arms makes more sense to me, and operating the weapon is made to be done without changing right-hand grip or moving the gun around. Magazines drop freely with the push of the index finger, and a new magazine is simply pushed upwards until it clicks. Dropping the mag in an AK involves pushing a lever with your off hand, then pulling the mag at the same time with the same hand. Putting it back in means putting it in at an angle on a catch, then tilting it rearward. The AR has a bolt catch to hold the bolt open automatically when the magazine is empty after the last round has fired, or can be engaged manually. The AK has no such feature, at least not without an add-on. The safety on an AR is thumb-operated and can be manipulated without a change in grip or movement of the trigger finger, while the AK safety requires the use of the index finger and a slight change in grip. An adjustable telescoping stock is a normal feature for A4 variants, and any AR can be built up with one (as is the case with mine). This is an aftermarket add-on for the AK, and changing this on an AK import means that you legally have to change out several other parts in the process. You can get as many handguards/forestocks for the AR as the day is long, but choice is relatively limited on the AK, due to both construction and general availability of aftermarket parts.
Economics
Had I gone with the AK, I would have purchased the gun outright. AK variants run around $450 and up, from what I've found. A milled-receiver AK (if you can still find one) is considerably more expensive. Building my AR from parts means that I can go in increments of around $100-$250 every couple of weeks and end up with a complete gun after a few months, spreading the cost over time. Yes, it is more money in the long run (for the basics, anyway), but money is saved while retaining quality of equipment, and that sort of option isn't really viable when considering the AK.
This is not to disparage the AK, as it certainly has its advantages. They are cheaper to get into, and are certainly common the world over. I wouldn't mind having one, but I had to decide between the two, and the AR was better for my purposes considering the factors unique to me.
