AR versus AK - which is better? Why?

[Ranger1]

Well that's not my experience. I would pick up a AK and a camel any day of the week over a M4 and a Humvee. Hell I would settle for a good horse or a donkey.

[Viper 1-26 INF]

Well that's not my experience. I would pick up a AK and a camel any day of the week over a M4 and a Humvee. Hell I would settle for a good horse or a donkey.

Never had a HMMWV in Afghanistan, but did jump out of a lot of helicopters, climbed mountains, and walked long distances.

[Ranger1]

You should have tried to get a donkey or horse. The mileage is better.

[Steve_In_29]

What's funny about the AR vs AK thing and something the AR fanbois ignore, is that the US Military has spent huge sums of money over the years trying to get the AR to be as lethal as the AK. Going from 55gr to 62gr to 77gr to 6.8 and 6.5.

[Ranger1]

They even resurrected the 221 fireball and with a small change they now call it the 300 bulk out

[Ranger1]

I'm sorry u have seen some of the not so great ones. There has been a lot of copies from different countries. But a true SVD not shot out but new from the mother land is a very effective weapon to and possably past 1000 meters. Now back to the OP's question, which one is better and why. There is no one answer to this question. Everyone thinks they are in the same category. They are not. The rest of the world uses the AK or copied AK line up. They kill just like any other weapon. But for someone to say the AR is more superior than the AK, they are very delusional. They both have there pros and cons. If you are working in a theater of war that uses either one of them you pick up the enemies weapon and you will learn it and be proficient with it. That's just the way it is. If you don't think the Ak is good just go ask all the soldiers that died by it. O another thing. How many of the enemy do you think we find using our AR15's?

I've seen a lot more people put down with M4s overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan than I saw with AKs. Most of the deaths my company took in the Korengal were from IEDs, DShKs, and PKMs and M4s and M14s that were taken from the SEALs and Rangers in Operation Red Wings... They had US PVS-14s and PEC-15s as well. 3 of our guys died from headshots from a US M-14 EBR-RI. The enemy loves to get their hands on US weapons and they are held as prized possessions in battle by them, they'll drop an AK in a second for an M4 or M-14.

I never had any problems with my M4, M249, or M-14 when I was in Afghanistan and I was in a lot of firefights. I would take an M4 over an AK anyday, though depending on the situation I may opt for an upper in 300 BLK or 6.5 Grendel.

You do know that was the Marcus Luttrell story right. I just got off the Phone with my Ranger buddy that's know of the OP. When the Rangers went in to recover the Seals and him it turned into Red Wings II. Out of the 4 Seals Marcus was with 3 died. 8 160th guys died and 8 more seals died. If they got the weapons it would have been from them not Rangers. There were no Ranger casualties on that mountain at that time.

[Viper 1-26 INF]

I'm sorry u have seen some of the not so great ones. There has been a lot of copies from different countries. But a true SVD not shot out but new from the mother land is a very effective weapon to and possably past 1000 meters. Now back to the OP's question, which one is better and why. There is no one answer to this question. Everyone thinks they are in the same category. They are not. The rest of the world uses the AK or copied AK line up. They kill just like any other weapon. But for someone to say the AR is more superior than the AK, they are very delusional. They both have there pros and cons. If you are working in a theater of war that uses either one of them you pick up the enemies weapon and you will learn it and be proficient with it. That's just the way it is. If you don't think the Ak is good just go ask all the soldiers that died by it. O another thing. How many of the enemy do you think we find using our AR15's?

I've seen a lot more people put down with M4s overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan than I saw with AKs. Most of the deaths my company took in the Korengal were from IEDs, DShKs, and PKMs and M4s and M14s that were taken from the SEALs and Rangers in Operation Red Wings... They had US PVS-14s and PEC-15s as well. 3 of our guys died from headshots from a US M-14 EBR-RI. The enemy loves to get their hands on US weapons and they are held as prized possessions in battle by them, they'll drop an AK in a second for an M4 or M-14.

I never had any problems with my M4, M249, or M-14 when I was in Afghanistan and I was in a lot of firefights. I would take an M4 over an AK anyday, though depending on the situation I may opt for an upper in 300 BLK or 6.5 Grendel.

You do know that was the Marcus Luttrell story right. I just got off the Phone with my Ranger buddy that's know of the OP. When the Rangers went in to recover the Seals and him it turned into Red Wings II. Out of the 4 Seals Marcus was with 3 died. 8 160th guys died and 8 more seals died. If they got the weapons it would have been from them not Rangers. There were no Ranger casualties on that mountain at that time.

Yes, I know it's the "Lone Survivor" story. I stand corrected, it was 160th and not Rangers, got that mixed up with some of the stories our company commander told us about the recovery ops as he was an officer in the Rangers during (more appropriately) Red Wings II (now Lieutenant Colonel James "Jimmy" Howell), he was an XO in 2nd Batt. at the time. Lt. Murphy's family and friends tried to keep in touch with people stationed in the Korengal, and would send us out care packages and supplies while we were stationed there, so it's pretty cool the connection that a lot of the people who have served in the Korengal have with each other even though they come from different units and were there at different times. I know the M-14 that took three of our guys wasn't from that incident, but was instead from 173rd. We eventually recovered it and an M4 from some bodies, and the serial number matched the one lost by 173rd.

[Tim McBride]

What's funny about the AR vs AK thing and something the AR fanbois ignore, is that the US Military has spent huge sums of money over the years trying to get the AR to be as lethal as the AK. Going from 55gr to 62gr to 77gr to 6.8 and 6.5.

55gr to 62gr change was for penetration. M193(55gr) is lead core only.
M8551 & M855A1 both have steel penetrators. A1 is "more lethal" due to bullet design.
Outside of select units Mk262 mod1 is not general issue ammunition nor is any 6.5 or 6.8 munition.

[Steve_In_29]

What's funny about the AR vs AK thing and something the AR fanbois ignore, is that the US Military has spent huge sums of money over the years trying to get the AR to be as lethal as the AK. Going from 55gr to 62gr to 77gr to 6.8 and 6.5.

55gr to 62gr change was for penetration. M193(55gr) is lead core only.
M8551 & M855A1 both have steel penetrators. A1 is "more lethal" due to bullet design.
Outside of select units Mk262 mod1 is not general issue ammunition nor is any 6.5 or 6.8 munition.

I am aware of that. The point is the military was trying to make the 5.56 round more lethal and the x39 was the stated target. They also got close to going 6.5, until the unlimited war funding died at the critical moment. Fitting a new barrel and bolt to existing rifles was all that was required with all issued mags and web gear still working.

[Comanchero]

I can’t choose just one or the other.
I love them both for different reasons already stated in the posts above.
Thankfully (at this point in time) we can still own them both.
Hopefully we’ll keep it that way.

[Steve_In_29]

RE: The low regard for the AK some have espoused here and other places. I venture the opposite would be true had we ever faced the Russians and their allies in a shooting war with first rate weapons and training. Instead of the 3rd world craphole fighters with their worn out weapons and pretty much zero training.

[Flash]

RE: The low regard for the AK some have espoused here and other places. I venture the opposite would be true had we ever faced the Russians and their allies in a shooting war with first rate weapons and training. Instead of the 3rd world craphole fighters with their worn out weapons and pretty much zero training.

But let's not forget that those 3rd world craphole fighters with worn out weapons and pretty much zero training drove the Russians out of Afghanistan.

[Steve_In_29]

But let's not forget that those 3rd world craphole fighters with worn out weapons and pretty much zero training drove the Russians out of Afghanistan.

You might want to bone up on history a bit. They no more drove the Russians out of Afghanistan on their own then did us Americans drive the British out of the Colonies. In both cases it was only through the intervention of a major world power that the results were achieved.

In the American Revolution it was the French (particularly their navy) coming in on our side that settled the matter and prevented the British from continuing the war.

While in Afghanistan it was the US supplying the fighters with Stinger missiles that allowed them to turn the tide against Russia. Prior to the Stingers the Russians were kicking the snot out of the Mujahedin and it was pretty much a death sentence for an Afghan to join them. This was due to the Russian's having total domination of the sky and being able to fight an air mobile war that was rooting out the Muj in their mountain strongholds.

The fact that America didn't honor it's commitments to the Afghans after we encouraged them to basically destroy their own country to drive the Russians out is what led DIRECTLY to the current situation we find ourselves in over there. Had we simply allocated the few billion to rebuild their country as promised, instead of walking away we would be considered heroes to the Afghani people instead of the great satan. America would have been the only foreign power to ever come to the aid of Afghanistan without occupying them.

[delta6]

But let's not forget that those 3rd world craphole fighters with worn out weapons and pretty much zero training drove the Russians out of Afghanistan.

You might want to bone up on history a bit. They no more drove the Russians out of Afghanistan on their own then did us Americans drive the British out of the Colonies. In both cases it was only through the intervention of a major world power that the results were achieved.

In the American Revolution it was the French (particularly their navy) coming in on our side that settled the matter and prevented the British from continuing the war.

While in Afghanistan it was the US supplying the fighters with Stinger missiles that allowed them to turn the tide against Russia. Prior to the Stingers the Russians were kicking the snot out of the Mujahedin and it was pretty much a death sentence for an Afghan to join them. This was due to the Russian's having total domination of the sky and being able to fight an air mobile war that was rooting out the Muj in their mountain strongholds.

The fact that America didn't honor it's commitments to the Afghans after we encouraged them to basically destroy their own country to drive the Russians out is what led DIRECTLY to the current situation we find ourselves in over there. Had we simply allocated the few billion to rebuild their country as promised, instead of walking away we would be considered heroes to the Afghani people instead of the great satan. America would have been the only foreign power to ever come to the aid of Afghanistan without occupying them.

Some truth here... but totally over simplified....

How's that working out for us today.....?

[Steve_In_29]

But let's not forget that those 3rd world craphole fighters with worn out weapons and pretty much zero training drove the Russians out of Afghanistan.

You might want to bone up on history a bit. They no more drove the Russians out of Afghanistan on their own then did us Americans drive the British out of the Colonies. In both cases it was only through the intervention of a major world power that the results were achieved.

In the American Revolution it was the French (particularly their navy) coming in on our side that settled the matter and prevented the British from continuing the war.

While in Afghanistan it was the US supplying the fighters with Stinger missiles that allowed them to turn the tide against Russia. Prior to the Stingers the Russians were kicking the snot out of the Mujahedin and it was pretty much a death sentence for an Afghan to join them. This was due to the Russian's having total domination of the sky and being able to fight an air mobile war that was rooting out the Muj in their mountain strongholds.

The fact that America didn't honor it's commitments to the Afghans after we encouraged them to basically destroy their own country to drive the Russians out is what led DIRECTLY to the current situation we find ourselves in over there. Had we simply allocated the few billion to rebuild their country as promised, instead of walking away we would be considered heroes to the Afghani people instead of the great satan. America would have been the only foreign power to ever come to the aid of Afghanistan without occupying them.

Some truth here... but totally over simplified....

How's that working out for us today.....?

Well this is a gun forum and not a place to post history dissertations after all. I posted enough to get anyone that was a thinking person to be able to dig deeper for themselves.

On edit: Was your "How's that working out for us today?" comment in regards to our having total air superiority? If so the difference was the Russians were actually trying to wipe out the insurgents whereas we are simply fighting to enrich the pockets of arms makers and companies like Halliburton.