Thoughts on Mr. Stoner and Mr. Kalashnikov

[Petrovich]

Okay.....who's design was the best?

[Rick]

Good debate!! I'm sure many will have various opinions. The AK47 has a lot in common with the 1911, load it, pull the trigger and it goes bang. The 1911 is loose as a goose as is the AK, that's the trick to making it work every time. These two weapons could be drug through the mud, blood, and the beer and still come out shooting, neither of them would need the constant care an M16 needs. When the ar15 came out Mr. Stoner had too many little parts that needed cleaned constantly, the chamber wasn't chromed so jamming was a major factor. When the m16 fianlly reached it's zenith, some of the jam factors had been corrected but it still needs cleaned on a very regular basis. Now to look at the cost factor...even in the civilian market which one costs more? The ar15 is somewhere about three times the cost of the AK. Munitions on the open market is a whole lot cheaper for the AK. For plinking and having a good time the AK is for me. For stratigic situations, the AR15 or the M16 is the way to go for distances.

[Petrovich]

They were born of different fathers into very different circumstances.

[Brian_Horton]

What kind of poll is this? Your only options are to praise AR's or bash AK's. Have you been reading the Dan Rather Guide to Writing Gun Poll Questions?

Personally I own and like them both.

[haspelbein]

Yes, the poll is very interesting.....

The AK can be mass produced at a low cost, is easy to maintain, and is very reliable. The AR is also reliable, but it is very sensitive towards ammunition types and cleaning/maintenance. Personally, I love the AR, as its easy handling and accuracy makes almost anybody feel like a good shot. Aside from the reliability factor, I don't find the AK very attractive.

That being said: If I could only own one semi-auto rifle, my personal choice would be neither one of the two.

[JU-87]

They are two exellent solutions to the same question:

I own a copy of each design, in semi-auto formats. I like each design, but for different reasons.

Brian_Horton: edited for content

[ampleworks]

I'll take an IMI Galil in .308

If struck by the choice of an AK or AR, I'll take the AK any day. Its more of the anti-gun taboo since its a "terrorist weapon designed only to kill babies and puppies", anything to give Sarah Brady something else to whine about.

[Glock and dagger]

Not me... CAR-15 for me.

[NavyChief]

FN-FAL - or an M-14 (or variant) as a close second.

Having said that, I think it's a toss-up. Stoner's original design, before it got all mucked up by McNamara's DoD whiz-kid bean counters and Army Ordnance (who were just generally pi$$ed off having to accept an "outside" design) was, in my (not so) humble opinion, a worthy contender to the AK. By the time all the cooks got outta the kitchen, though, the broth was pretty much ruined.

[Petrovich]

This is always a lively debate.

There really is NO way to compare these weapons. They are as different as socialism and capitalism, and are even a reflection of THAT.

Each gun is a study in history (as most military small arms are) but these two make huge political, philosophical, and social statements.

From where I stand, I definately see the AR type weapons as superior in every respect to the kalashnikov but, here again, it's like comparing apples and oranges.

I've gotten into the AR here over the past year or so. I've even assemble a lower (no big deal...easier than putting together a bicycle). And my next project is to assemble an upper. One big thing I've noticed is the simplicity of the design; hence the genius.

I've messed around with mausers for years, and I can say that reconfiguring/building/modifying AR's is infinately easier than mausers. Heck, with AR's a few simple/cheap hand tools are all that's needed. For mausers you need a small machine shop and a fair smattering of hand tools. I guess my point is that the kalashnikov doesn't have an edge when it comes to simplicity.

IN FACT....try rebarreling a kalashnikov...or building one from a kit. I've never done it, but you need a floor press, and at minimum a drill press.

The piston/transfer rod is reliable but again...is it simpler than the AR's gas tube??? Man, that WAS genius...who would have guessed all you had to do was blow some high pressure gas directly on a bolt carrier to make the thing go...no metal to metal slamming together...just a jet of gas.

You can't argue with the AR's accuracy either.

[swingset]

Having said that, I think it's a toss-up. Stoner's original design, before it got all mucked up by McNamara's DoD whiz-kid bean counters and Army Ordnance (who were just generally pi$$ed off having to accept an "outside" design) was, in my (not so) humble opinion, a worthy contender to the AK. By the time all the cooks got outta the kitchen, though, the broth was pretty much ruined.

I agree, the M16/AR15 is pretty sad.

Pretty much a worthless gun, once you factor out that awesome accuracy, modularity, controlability and ergonomics. Dunno what the army was thinking?

[Petrovich]

Having said that, I think it's a toss-up. Stoner's original design, before it got all mucked up by McNamara's DoD whiz-kid bean counters and Army Ordnance (who were just generally pi$$ed off having to accept an "outside" design) was, in my (not so) humble opinion, a worthy contender to the AK. By the time all the cooks got outta the kitchen, though, the broth was pretty much ruined.

I agree, the M16/AR15 is pretty sad.

Pretty much a worthless gun, once you factor out that awesome accuracy, modularity, controlability and ergonomics. Dunno what the army was thinking?

If I ever get my hands on some ammo I'll try out the 6.8mm upper I had made by DPMS.

[Safety Guy]

If I could have it, I'd take my M16A-1 from boot camp at Ft. McClellan. She was the only firearm I ever named--"Edwina Poodleshooter."

She was loose as a goose and looked it. I loved her. She's probably been sent to some foreign country or chopped up by now (I went to basic in '90).

Other than her, I have no real passion for the black rifle.

I'm a WWII buff and I have my Garand and my Carbine.

However, I might own an AK by now if Columbus hadn't passed it's idiocy.

AKs are the most produced military rifle in the world, and it would behoove many to know how to run one. That's what my purchase would have been for.

A guy who works for Options for Personal Security named Paul Gomez is writing a book about AKs, focusing on the practical usage of and up to date manual of arms. I intend to get it.

I bet the main reason I loved Edwina at boot camp was that she didn't weigh as much as an M1 or M14!

Karl

[marinecorpsmike]

Went to Viet Nam in 1966 with an M14. Never touched a M16/AR15 until I bought one to shoot in highpower matches in 1992. Felt funny, looked funny, sounded funny but within a couple months I was shooting the middle out of the X ring. All of a sudden it didn't feel, look, sound so funny. Old Marines would say, in chronological order, an M1 will never be the rifle that an 03 is, an M14 will never be the rifle an M1 is, an M16 will never be the rifle an M14 is, but they were all wrong. For MANY years now M16s have been reliable , accurate and easy to shoot. Factor in light weight , low recoil and select fire and it's easy to see why it is still the issue weapon after almost 40 years. I've fired and been fired at with many Ak's and I know that it will go bang no matter what it's dunked in, but it's a rifle in name only. Without select fire capability it is very limited because of its inherent inaccuracy. At 20 meters and full auto, of course they can do the job, but at 100,200,300 meters they are pretty poor shooters. My accurized AR is a true 1/2 moa rifle and shot near 1 moa out of the box. That's why they win service rifle matches at Camp Perry. That's a pretty good tradeoff for just a little more care than an AK requires.

[TunnelRat]

Yup, I, too, trained with an M-14 rifle, but, when I got to the pleasure paradise of Southeast Asia, I was issued an M-16. It had a slot for a bayonet so I made do. Later, since I was an officer, I got one of the few CAR-15's that were lying about.

These plastic Mattel gadgets were lighter (way lighter!) than the M-14 and more pleasant (much more pleasant!) to hump through the boonies. Besides, we were able to carry more than twice as much ammunition using the same ammo pouches. The basic load with an M-14 was 100 rounds. With an M-16 we carried 220!

Mine would go bang when I pulled the trigger. And the friendly neighbors we played tag with would take their deads on cue.

On more than one occasion I faced a guy with his AK on full auto. His rounds would crack past both my ears while my shoulder held, semi-auto fire would hit the mark.

If you've ever gotta be in a gunfight, always pray that your enemy may be on full auto...