Discussion in 'Large-Bore/Small-Bore Rifle/Shotgun' started by ruger270man, Jan 13, 2005.
You forgot AK (5.45x39) That's the best of the three!
too bad, this is my poll, 762x39 vs .223 love it or leave it
Mikhail was no genius. He was a tank member who found the German prototype near the end of WWII and simply copied the design.
well hes a genius for doing that then..
Think....then engage your brain x_x
I did think.. and my thoughts tell me "make a poll about AK vs AR and dont listen to roboman"
besides.. how can you think without first engaging your brain..
Then after engaging your brain, go to the mouth.
AND THE ROCKETS RED GLAAAAARRRREEEEEE, THE BOMBS BURSTING IN AIIIRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
Give me the AR design in 7.62 x 51.
I agree in principle with LowRider on the cartridge, but not in choice of platform. I'm finally getting a CETME because its reasonable recoil and hi-cap box mags put it in a family of better "battle rifles" than either of the others, as are, probably, the AR-10 and a few other good designs that chamber .308 -- and .30-06, for that matter. Of the two mentioned, though, I vote for the AK for two reasons -- one, the M-16 is more likely to merely wound, and two, the AK shoots under the most rigorous battlefield conditions and will do so for about the next hundred years with little if any cleaning. Hence, an Izhmash product in .308 should be among the best choices, and I hope some day to get ahold of one of those in .308 that was built like an AK, myself. (Though I hear most of them were chopped Saigas.) And while I'm at it I might as well mention that it's too bad Ruger never got the XGI beefed up enough to work correctly, because they could have sold a slew of them.
Good luck on that Cetme, I took two to the range with friends only one of them worked at all. They are neat when they work, but my research indicates they fail a lot
I'm getting one with the black stainless steel receiver, which had the best reputation. Most of them that are sticky out of the box just need to be broken in and then they are fine. We shall see what I get.
I like the fact that the A.k. always goes "bang" and is not pickey about what you feed it - ever-
I have heard * this is second hand info* that the ar is very fussy about the type of ammo, tends to jam, and have feed problems.
I am the kind of person who wants to slap a loaded clip in the mag well and and dump the ammo out the front, I dont want to be futzing with the gun every few mags ( or rounds in some cases) to be able to keep shooting. I also do not want to have to clean the darn thing after 50 or 100 rounds to keep it shooting and functioning well.
the A.K. fits the bill for me I have NEVER in 8 years had a misfire, failure to feed, failure to eject, stove pipe, or any type of problem PERIOD.
***captain cave man voice*** pull trigger it go bang... that a good thing
I dont think the AR is finicky to THAT extent.. sure, it wont go as long as the AK without an FTF or having to clean it, but supposedly its pretty reliable.
Mine, over a twenty year period, has only been unable to digest WOLF.
It's been my experience (2 AR's) that mags make all the difference, I have stocked up on Labelles to eliminate the problem, I understand that there are some other really good mags on the market as well... The only ammo that I have had problems with is Olympic and have found that most people do...It is bottom of the barrel ammo.
You get what you pay for in this case as well as many others in life...If you buy cheap, no name, mags and sorry ammo, then your right the AR is finicky, but you feed it Lake City ammo with quality mags and it'll go all day, mine do.
Sure the AK will take the abuse better, but loose tolerances make lose groups, now if I lived over in the sandbox I'd want an AK, but I dont and we certainally dont have the dry contitions in Texas to warrant me being worried about my reciever filling up with sand.
As far as the .223 goes, heck it was designed to penetrate both sides of the enemies helmet at 500 yards (or was it 600? someone remind me?) that's plenty of power enough to convince me that if I hit the enemy anywhere on his body he's through fighting for the day.
Dont get me wrong, I like the AK, it will do what it was designed to do in the worst conditions and that 30 caliber bullet is going to reak havok on its target, it is a workhorse of a battle rifle, but for my own purposes and the part of the country I live in I voted for the AR, its been dependable for me, it is accurate as heck and I've had no problems with it functioning like it was designed to.
Kalashnikov WAS a genius. You don't see militaries and guerrillas all over the world using AR's do you? Nope, they use AK's. They are cheap to build, effective, and easy to maintain. The AK beats the AR in all three of those areas.
This isn't to say that a person can't love both weapons. But if I had to pick between the two for survival, the AK would be the one I run with.
Ahh, I think you are on to something there.
I'm messing with ya, I like the other statement too
That's cause you own a colt.
Separate names with a comma.