AK vs. AR: The Rebuttal
Since The Noob has thrown his lot in with the AK group, I shall play devil’s advocate and support the AR platform. Having shot both, let me just go ahead and say that I like both for their unique virtues. No matter which you take with you into a bad situation, you will not feel outgunned.
The AK vs. AR argument goes back a long way, getting its start in Vietnam when M-16A1 rifles were first issued to U.S. troops who were up against Viet Cong and NVA troops using the SKS and AK-47. The early versions of Eugene Stoner’s creation had flaws, mostly stemming from the Army changing Stoner’s rifle for their own purposes, and unfortunately those flaws sparked a reputation for being unreliable that continues to this day.
In reality, there’s a reason that the AR platform has remained the U.S. military’s primary assault rifle for longer than any other weapon. Having gone through numerous upgrades (the platform is in its fourth generation), it is as reliable as any other military-type weapon out there. It has become so reliable, in fact, that some ARs manufactured today forego the forward-assist as an obsolete feature of a bygone era, the AR’s appendix, if you will. Its modular nature allows one to configure the weapon for a range of tasks from very general to very specific and is much more accurate than the AK.
At its heart, the AK platform is a simple machine designed for a simple soldier drafted off a wheat farm in Petropavlovsk, but simple isn’t always better when talking about a combat arm. Its ergonomics suck, for instance. The magazine release is a lever just behind the magazine, which has to be “rocked” into position. With a reciprocating charging handle on the right side and a safety lever out of finger range, most shooters will need to take their hand off the grip in order to make use of the weapon’s features whereas the AR is designed to be able to load, charge and operate the safety with the off hand with the rifle in a ready position. This means you can perform most of the AR’s functions with the rifle aimed at the target.
Optics are another consideration. Most modern ARs come with a railed upper receiver rather than a carry handle, designed from the outset with a range of options for optics. An AK, on the other hand, is somewhat more limited. An AK can be scoped with a side-latching scope mount that places a scope rather high above receiver. There are other post-factory options, rails on the receiver cover or replacing the rear sight, but in the end optics for an AK were an afterthought while for the AR they are an integral part of the weapons system.
Ammunition is another consideration. One of the “plusses” of moving from a 7.62 round to a 5.56 round was that having lighter ammunition meant a person could carry more of it. The Russians themselves took this lesson to heart when they replaced the AK-47 with the AK-74, which fires the 5.56X39mm round. With the popularity of the .223 round, both in military and civilian circles, the odds of coming across U.S.-made .223 in an emergency situation is much greater than coming across Russian-made 7.62X39mm. The same could be said for parts.
Let me reiterate that both rifles are good weapons. The AK has its advantages and the AR has its own. I could just as easily have written a rebuttal if the Noob had chosen the AR as his go-to gun. The trick is to find out which one you like shooting the most because a rifle you enjoy shooting is a rifle you’re comfortable with, but no matter which one you go with, you have a solid platform. There’s no worry about that.
Like what you read? GunNoob is now part of Pew Pew Tactical. Check out the rest of our awesome resources:
Leave a Reply