AR versus AK

[trackwolf]

I'm not sold on tritium either, in the sense that they are a MUST have.

I was surprised (and somewhat annoyed) to discover that XS Sights, who makes the AK tritium front sight post, does NOT offer it without tritium.

[Section1_Operations]

I was surprised (and somewhat annoyed) to discover that XS Sights, who makes the AK tritium front sight post, does NOT offer it without tritium.

Isn't that the whole point of the XS line or did I miss something ?

[Anthony]

The odds of a civilian needing any kind of firearm is pretty low, however times are changing.

Very true arl.
And if they do use a firearm, they will probably use a pistol if they have a CCW. A pistol or shotgun, if it is a home defense situation.
I voiced my praise for the AK in a CQB role. For defense at close range, it is probably the best option.
But: ( Slightly off thread, - sorry.)
If the choice were for a rifle that would go to the range a lot, be used in competition ( 3 gun etc,) be a joy to own, accurate as a semi can be made, is made to take scopes, red dot sights and other accesories, plus can be easily and adequatly pressed into general rifle service for defense, then I think that a good AR is probably the better choice.
No, I'm not flip flopping.
For those who have the money, why not one of each ?
Plus a good 7.62 x 51 battle rifle of course. ;)
Regards,
Anthony.

[Al Lipscomb]

Plus a good 7.62 x 51 battle rifle of course. ;)
Regards,
Anthony.

That gets us into the topic of roles. If I want a rifle that stays with me and used for CQB that is one thing. If I want to be able to handle anti-sniper, anti-vehicle problems I need the right tool for the job.

A couple of more AKs will allow you stash them at other locations as well.

Offsite backup and storage is a mantra for us IT guys :)

[Gabe Suarez]

We cannot compare the FAL to the AR any more than we can compare the AK to the FAL. As a weapon, the FAL is far more versatile and precise than either the AK or AR. In fact, IMHO, rather than waste time and effort on developing the 6.8, why not issue FALs....but that is for another thread.

And if the choice is FAL or M1A, the FAL wins out.

If the choice is AK, AR, or FAL, you must ask what is the rifle for.

The FAL can reach and penetrate better than the AK. But the price is weight and size. The AK is smaller and will fit into spaces the FAL cannot. (I am well aware you can get a para FAL with a short barrel, but before we bring that up, how available are they and what is the price??).

We could get into the time-honored discussion of battle rifles vs. assault rifles and intermediate cartridges vs. full-size cartridges, etc. This would not do anything for us here.

My opinion is - For country-rural use, away from cities and katrina-cop gun-grabbers, where the rifle may need to be used for food gathering at distance as well as sniping, as well as CQB, the FAL gets a nod. For urban close range defensive-nature natural/man-made disaster events, and CQB, the AK will yield better overall results.

[Anthony]

My opinion is - For country-rural use, away from cities and katrina-cop gun-grabbers, where the rifle may need to be used for food gathering at distance as well as sniping, as well as CQB, the FAL gets a nod. For urban close range defensive-nature natural/man-made disaster events, and CQB, the AK will yield better overall results.

That would most certainly sum it up for me too.
I would put the AR ( for a civilian,) into the bracket of 'probably the best games gun', that can very well be pushed into defense use if really needed.
I would certainly not choose an AR for a purely defensive/CQB rifle, but as I posted above, they are delightfull to shoot. - Probably the most 'user friendly' as far as I am concerned.
Regards,
Anthony.

[ORD neighbor]

And yet, Israelis for some reason found the FAL to be unsitable. Allegedly due to reliability issues, but I never did find out specifically what the problem was.

[trackwolf]

In fact, IMHO, rather than waste time and effort on developing the 6.8, why not issue FALs....but that is for another thread.

This subject came up in another thread [ http://www.warriortalk.com/showthread.php?p=178032 ] but was dismissed by some of our learned members.

[MTS]

And yet, Israelis for some reason found the FAL to be unsuitable. Allegedly due to reliability issues, but I never did find out specifically what the problem was.

Chuck Taylor looked into that claim and said that it seemed to be a lack of cleaning and maintenance.

However, I've never seen that elsewhere and Israel now carries M4/M16 rifles that require as much or more maintenance. Perhaps due to the changing face of Israeli conflict?

yoni, Ike, can you add anything?

[Gabe Suarez]

Not everything Chuck said has merit. I hate to say it, but that is the way I see it. In the article he mentioned that, he was hawking the IMI Galil.

The interesting thing is that if what he said was the case, this is the only army to have used the FAL that had any trouble with it. I've spoken with soldiers from various militaries that have used the FAL and no one seems to have had issues with it.

Anthony...what say you with your FAL experiences?
How about you Yoni??

The ironic thing is that IF the Israelis did in fact find the FAL unreliable, why on God's earth would they be carrying M16s today!!??!! No one can say the M16 is more reliable than a FAL.

My .02....It was a caliber issue and not a weapon issue. FAL does not come in 5.56.