AR versus AK

[Gabe Suarez]

Kalashnikov Versus M-4

Since we began our studies with the AK-47 series of rifles, the question has been hanging in the air like smoke from a stale cigar. Which rifle is better? Which rifle would you choose? It is hard to answer such questions without running the risk of offending someone. We become very attached to our hardware sometimes, and that attachment increases with the dollar value we place on it.

However, to not look at this question, would be shirking responsibility to those who have asked me. I want to begin by saying I have no axe to grind with any weapon system. A gun is like a tool to me, not an heirloom. If it does not do the job it was intended for well, it is useless to me. Similarly, if there is a better tool that does the same job, I am not attached to any system irrevocably.

Lets look at what these rifles were intended for. First and foremost, they are bred for fighting. They were not designed for sport, nor hunting, nor anything else other than fighting. The concept began in WW2 with the German designed StG-44. Called the “Sturm Gewehr”, or storm gun, the StG-44 was years ahead of its time, and was battle proven in the crucible of the Eastern Front.

There were those who went against established doctrine and knew that the future of combat lay not in the long range engagements of WW1, but rather in close range fights as had been seen at the conclusion of the war in the European Theatre. These forward thinkers knew infantry engagements happened inside of 100 yards, and sought to provide weapons that provided the features needed to prevail in those environments. Namely light weight, capacity for high volume of fire, and an intermediate cartridge.

In the west, the Garand was exchanged for the M-14, and the FAL, both in 7.62x51. Weapons with characteristics similar to the Storm Gun, but firing a full size cartridge. On the other side of the world, Mikhail Kalashnikov developed the AK-47 series of rifles. To make a long story short, the nations of the west saw a need to embrace the Storm gun concept and an air crew survival rifle designed by Gene Stoner, called the Armalite AR-15, was adopted for use as a first line fighting rifle.

Today, partly due to marketing, and partly due to the demise of the liberal’s “Assault Weapon Ban”, we have two very prominent weapon systems available to the American public. On the one end, we have the AR-15/M4 rifles which have undergone a great deal of evolution since their first appearance. And on the other end, we have a plethora of Kalashnikov rifles made up here in the US by firms such as Arsenal, or put together by AK-smiths from US receivers and imported parts.

A head to head comparison is difficult because the weapons represent different fighting philosophies from two different nations. The M4 is an engineering marvel. It is precise as a stiletto. The Kalashnikov has been called a simpleton’s rifle more analogous to a tomahawk than a stiletto. But the question is which rifle will accomplish the mission better.
I am looking at the mission from the eyes of a private citizen. Both the AK and the AR have been proven on the battlefield, so the issue of whether they can serve a modern soldier well enough has been answered.

The private citizen will need a rifle for survival and defense in remote areas of the back country. Recently a student of mine who is also a miner related how his AK rifle had discouraged a group of illegal aliens from robbing him. Similarly a rifle will enhance the survivability in extreme situations such as riots (Los Angeles Korea Town), or during natural disasters (Katrina).

The private citizen needs a super reliable rifle that is not finicky about weather conditions, compact enough to go unseen by gun-grabbing authorities, carries enough ammo to make resupply a moot point, and is not disabled by rough handling. The cartridge should be able to have terminal effects on targets within reasonable distances and behind light cover. It should be able to punch through light cover such as automobiles.

So lets look at these points from the basis of the AR and AK.

Reliability under adverse weather conditions – The gas system of the AK is legendary, and sets the standard for reliability. The same cannot be said about the AR. We can debate how a particular AR may work without fail, but if we were to take a case of ammo and go off into the desert or swamp to shoot, and never clean the rifles, the AK would out distance the AR by a considerable margin. Will you be able to clean your rifle? I hope so. The main problem with the AR system is direct gas feed into the bolt carrier assembly causing greater degree of fouling. Will this be an issue if you can clean the rifle? I don’t think so, but theoretically the AK is more reliable with this.

Compact enough to hide – By now the excesses of certain law enforcement officers during the Katrina disaster have been well discussed. Suffice to say that in my opinion a private citizen now has to watch out for not only looters and criminals, but also for those “Us versus Them” types. The AK can be had in a variety of folding stock configurations where the total length of the folded stock rifle is approximately 25-26 inches. Such a rifle can be carried, “Cocked and Locked” so to speak, stock folded, in a camp Chair bag, or a similar sized container. Such a rifle is ready to use in an eye blink, yet concealed from view. The AR can be had with a collapsible stock, but excluding SBRs (short barreled rifles), it is considerably longer than the comparably folded AK. The AR can be broken down into two pieces to form a very compact package, but it is still just as long as the folded AK stock weapons, and now is not in a ready to use mode. If we can use such a word in regards to rifles, the AK is much more concealable than the AR.

[Gabe Suarez]

Resupply a moot point – I used to think that the AR was superior for use on US soil due to the fact one could theoretically resupply from the National Guard, or police forces. Well, Katrina burst that notion to smithereens. If resupply is a moot point, then caliber is not a concern. If we are not linked to the 5.56 because of political reasons (its what is issued to everyone), then we are free to choose something else.

In either case, one can carry several fully loaded magazines (of 20-30 rounds) in a Bug Out Bag, long with a few boxes of spare ammunition so resupply is not a problem to concern ourselves with.


The rifle should be rugged (and that includes the magazine) – Take your rifle and drop it from a three story building, have a bus run over it, bury it in mud, dunk it water, block a full force baseball bat swung at it, and then go to the range to shoot it. In my good friend Sonny Puzikas’ DVD – Beyond The Firearm, he shows his Spetsnaz unit doing that very thing to an AK-74. I don’t think that an AR could take such abuse. Maybe I am wrong on this, but I would like to see it done on video to prove me wrong. The AK wins the ruggedness competition hands down.


Cartridge - The 5.56x45 has been beset with controversies since it inception. Currently there is a move to reissue the M-14 to some units in the Middle East. There is work on a new-improved caliber, the 6.8. I will not say the 5.56x45 (aka .223) is a piece of garbage. Certainly not. But is it perfect for what we need?


The 7.62x39 on the other hand has never been beset by controversy. Against light or heavy cover, the 7.62x39 outperforms the 5.56/.223 by a wide margin without becoming uncontrollable. Set a target behind a car door and shoot through the door with a .223 and then with a 7.62x39 and you will see what I mean. Once we look at munitions other than military ball, the AK looks even better.


The main gripes against the AK seem to be ones of ergonomics: sights, and safety.

In short, the rifle does not feel like an AR. As I recall, the same was said of the Glock. Once you stop trying to use AR technique on an AK, the weapon stops feeling uncomfortable.


So to answer the original questions. Which rifle is better? Which rifle would you choose? I think both rifles are fine choices. As I said earlier, to me a weapon is a tool to fulfill a mission. Whichever tool does it best gets selected. For a private citizen in extremis, due to remoteness, natural disaster or riots, I would suggest the Kalashnikov as a better choice due to the factors listed as well as the issue of price. I still have several ARs in my armory, but the Kalashnikov is the rifle I train with the most and the one I would grab if I needed a rifle to go fight with.

[Section1_Operations]

You're a bad man Gabe!!! Such heresy you speak! Your AK-foo is strong...

I cannot believe I'm going to type this but the price point, reliability, and size certainly make an AK/AKM pattern rifle hard to beat considering the level of devotion/training most will commit to their tools. The design and loss tolerances are an undeniable plus for the AK/AKM.

[michael]

Gabe's gone and done it again!! The gun mafia is going to be after him..........:D

[Al Lipscomb]

In my quest for the home defense rifle, my savings account allowed for an AK years before an AR was an option. So a bird (or AK) in the hand is worth two (ARs) in the bush.

[Jack Rumbaugh]

Having them both, I do like shooting my AR with all the bells and whistles. Now that I have had some AK-Fu training from Gomez and more coming in October, I have a newfound respect and affection for my beat up WASR-10. If it truly was a SHTF situation, I'd grab whichever is closest at that moment. If it was my AR, I'd most likely use it to fight to my AK.

[BB82]

Every operator that I know will grab the right tool for the right job. I've never known one to disparage the use of an AK. Only comments that I've heard negative about the AK concerned the ammo, and the 'experts' feel that using match grade 7.62x39 ammo cuts group sizes in half.
Something to think about if you are concerned that you might need to make some longer range shots with your AK. Grab a couple of boxes of match ammo, and take it to the range. Get familiar with it.
I'm doing that again today myself.:)

[Randy Harris]

I think the whole group size argument is a non argument. What are you using this rifle for? If you are going to Camp Perry then leave the AK at home. If you are using it as a defensive rifle, the odds are OVERWHELMING that you will never have to engage a target more than 100yds away. This isn't the western front in WWI. When is the last time anyone here saw a documented case where a civillian used a rifle OVER 100 yds in a SELF DEFENSE situation? Anyone? EVER?......

Ok, so what if your AK shoots 4 inch groups at 100 yds? Big deal. That means it is shooting 2" 50yd groups. It means it is shooting 1" 25yd groups and THAT 50 to 25 yard distance is going to be MOST likely where your rifle will REALLY be used anyway. And yes GOOD quality commercial US made ammo generally does cut the groups down. Better quality control. So if your gun shoots 4" groups with Wolf, then try Winchester 123gr SP and see how it groups. I imagine it will do at least a little better accuracy wise, and be more effective terminal ballistics wise too!

But again lets keep things in perspective. Where will it REALLY be used? This isn't trench warfare in 1915 shooting across "no man's land". It will be more like modern combat MOUT(military operations in urban terrain) and distance will be 50 yds and in. Ak is PLENTY accurate enough for 100 yds or less.

[Section1_Operations]

When is the last time anyone here saw a documented case where a civillian used a rifle OVER 100 yds in a SELF DEFENSE situation? Anyone? EVER?......

I completely agree with your post but wanted to add that in '66 on the University of Texas campus civilians did engage Whitman in the clock tower along with the police. I had added this to another thread were this came up before on civilians engaging threats but don't remember you responding to it. I have to imagine that this is the only thoroughly documented case in the 20th Century of such an action by civilians. Engagement distances for the civilians would have easily been in excess of 100yrds and varied depending on location.

[Randy Harris]

Yes, Whitman is the exception.

But even with Whitman, he wasn't killed from 150-200 yds away by a police sniper or a deer rifle weilding citizen. He was killed at PISTOL distance at the top of the tower by the guys that "closed with and destroyed the enemy". So I'm not so sure that the Texas Tower incident is so much an argument against a short to midrange rifle as it is an argument FOR the fact that it all ends up being really close in the end.