I got the hots for an AK.

Forum dedicated for rifles and shotguns from basic to tactical.

Moderator: ZS Global Moderators

User avatar
JeeperCreeper
ZS Member
ZS Member
Posts: 2383
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 2:49 am
Favorite Zombie Movies: Twilight... making zombies of our future generations
Location: Yo Momma's House

Re: I got the hots for an AK.

Post by JeeperCreeper » Wed Oct 17, 2018 8:15 pm

A couple months ago I was at a very high end gun store I visit when I'm out of town.

I asked the guy, just b.s.ing, "hey, what do you recommend as the best AK for the money?"

He handed me a CMMG Mutant. We both laughed.

Build an AR47 or get a mutant until the US makers get their shit together. Or buy an Arsenal.
They see me trollin', they hatin'.... keyboardin' tryna catch me typin' dirty
Halfapint wrote:There are some exceptions like myself and jeepercreeper.... but we are the forum asshats. We protect our positions with gusto
zero11010 wrote:The girlfriend is a good shot with a 10/22.
Her secondary offense will be nagging.

User avatar
moab
* * * * *
Posts: 3664
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2012 7:07 pm

Re: I got the hots for an AK.

Post by moab » Wed Oct 17, 2018 10:34 pm

JeeperCreeper wrote:
Wed Oct 17, 2018 8:15 pm
Or buy an Arsenal.
I can't stress this enough. And I don't think I did earlier. But you CAN NOT go wrong with an ARsenal. They are the Caddilac of AK's. Maybe even nicer. Some recent paint issues. But that's minimal considering how much better these are than a majority of the AK's on the market. Save your money if you gonna buy an AK. And buy an Arsenal. Factory made in Bulgaria. I think Arsenal is to AK's - as Colt is to AR's. That's just my humble half educated about AR's opinion. They are both at about the same price point in the market. Higher end but affordable if you save your money. And similar quality - very very good. Maybe even excellent. And they have entry level offerings and more expensive offerings. Arsenal is probably just behind Krebs and Rifle Dynamics reputation and quality wise. And I believe Arsenal had a special forces contract some time back IIRC. Not that that means anything. But they sure weren't asking for WASR's.
"Ideas are more dangerous than guns. We don't let our people have guns. Why would we let them have ideas?" Josef Stalin

User avatar
brothaman
* * * * *
Posts: 1041
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 1:40 pm
Location: SC

Re: I got the hots for an AK.

Post by brothaman » Thu Oct 18, 2018 7:19 am

On the AR47,.. I did have one. It was PSA product and it was an accurate gun. But,.. I just couldn't love it. It was me, not the gun.

I think if I found the right deal on an Aresnal, I'd likely buy it.
It stops being funny when it starts being you.

User avatar
12_Gauge_Chimp
ZS Lifetime Member
ZS Lifetime Member
Posts: 6768
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 4:21 pm
Location: Middle of nowhere, West Texas
Contact:

Re: I got the hots for an AK.

Post by 12_Gauge_Chimp » Thu Oct 18, 2018 12:41 pm

If I were to buy another AK (I've been missing having more than one), I'd probably save up for one of those Arsenal SLR-107R's.

Or maybe I'd give Atlantic Firearms another look and see what they've gotten in over the past couple years.

User avatar
moab
* * * * *
Posts: 3664
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2012 7:07 pm

Re: I got the hots for an AK.

Post by moab » Thu Oct 18, 2018 5:48 pm

Here's a real option. Polish AK made at Radom. $699. Just needs new furniture. And that top rail is solid.

https://armsofamerica.com/wbpfoxakm762x ... oland.aspx
"Ideas are more dangerous than guns. We don't let our people have guns. Why would we let them have ideas?" Josef Stalin

User avatar
woodsghost
* * * * *
Posts: 3136
Joined: Thu May 16, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: I got the hots for an AK.

Post by woodsghost » Thu Oct 18, 2018 7:13 pm

When it comes to the reliability of the AK, I am struck hard by the mud tests done various places online. The AR often does better, and that is usually attributed to it's having a closed system. Which irritates the snot out of my original reason for owning the AK.

On the other hand, I have heard from numerous soldiers who have and who never did deploy to combat zones that they felt the AK proved more reliable than the AR. I have heard from some SEALs and Rangers that they were more impressed with the AK than with the AR when overseas. For what that is worth. Others have stood by the AR as being the more reliable platform.

It makes sense that the AK allows dirt to accumulate in harmless places. Further, reports from friends in nasty places say the AR does accumulate dirt in all the weird places. There is no getting away from that. Even if the closed system works better on YouTube mud tests, nature finds a way, no matter what, to get stuff into the AR.

In addition, when we look at the world and look at what guns are being used by peasant bands in the hinterlands, the AK seems to dominate. The AR, fundamentally, seems to need a higher quality of ammo and a better standard of care than the AK. And when it receives a higher standard of ammo and care, it runs just as well as any AK. It seems when one runs a rifle in a lower standard of care environment that we see the AK doing better. But even so, we do still see ARs in use in some South American jungles. Primarily where they were given by the US to allies. I guess if one is planning for a PAW environment with a lower standard of quality in terms of care or ammo, the AK makes sense. But those mud tests are hard to beat. There is a lot to be said for that AR in terms of reliability.

All that to say: anymore I feel the "reliability" argument has to be carefully qualified. I don't know. I'd love to be shown I"m wrong in this. I"d really rather be shown the AK is superior.
*Remember: I'm just a guy on the internet :)
*Don't go to stupid places with stupid people & do stupid things.
*Be courteous. Look normal. Be in bed by 10'clock.

“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” -Bilbo Baggins.

User avatar
moab
* * * * *
Posts: 3664
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2012 7:07 pm

Re: I got the hots for an AK.

Post by moab » Thu Oct 18, 2018 7:55 pm

woodsghost wrote:
Thu Oct 18, 2018 7:13 pm
When it comes to the reliability of the AK, I am struck hard by the mud tests done various places online. The AR often does better, and that is usually attributed to it's having a closed system. Which irritates the snot out of my original reason for owning the AK.

On the other hand, I have heard from numerous soldiers who have and who never did deploy to combat zones that they felt the AK proved more reliable than the AR. I have heard from some SEALs and Rangers that they were more impressed with the AK than with the AR when overseas. For what that is worth. Others have stood by the AR as being the more reliable platform.

It makes sense that the AK allows dirt to accumulate in harmless places. Further, reports from friends in nasty places say the AR does accumulate dirt in all the weird places. There is no getting away from that. Even if the closed system works better on YouTube mud tests, nature finds a way, no matter what, to get stuff into the AR.

In addition, when we look at the world and look at what guns are being used by peasant bands in the hinterlands, the AK seems to dominate. The AR, fundamentally, seems to need a higher quality of ammo and a better standard of care than the AK. And when it receives a higher standard of ammo and care, it runs just as well as any AK. It seems when one runs a rifle in a lower standard of care environment that we see the AK doing better. But even so, we do still see ARs in use in some South American jungles. Primarily where they were given by the US to allies. I guess if one is planning for a PAW environment with a lower standard of quality in terms of care or ammo, the AK makes sense. But those mud tests are hard to beat. There is a lot to be said for that AR in terms of reliability.

All that to say: anymore I feel the "reliability" argument has to be carefully qualified. I don't know. I'd love to be shown I"m wrong in this. I"d really rather be shown the AK is superior.
I hear you. I have the same debates with myself. To the point I've started running both.

As "scientific" as mud tests are. (I'm being sarcastic.) I don't put a lot of faith in them. Mud differs. The amount being poured and where differs. The original rifle differs. How much mud you bang off the rifle before firing differs. I don't know if I trust either sides tests. I could probably do ten mud tests on one gun and get a different result every time. The AK ones I've seen have largely dumped a bunch of mud in and tried to fire it. I think either would fail to fire. Given varying circumstances. But if you drug an AK thru some water or poured a canteens worth into the receiver - after dumping it with mud. I see a lot more action from the AK than the AR. But that's just tolerances. And the amount of moving parts. One is for sure more precise than the other - AR. And one is meant to have the fewest parts, easiest to use, and go bang everytime. (Under normal circumstances - not mud tests.) My point is it would be a lot easier to wash out the mud and get going with an AK than an AR. I'd think you'd need to tear down the AR to get it running again.

One is a larger round. With more stopping power. But heavier so can't carry as much. The other is a lighter round. But with decent ballistics. And tends to be more accurate. Not like you can't hit the broadside of a barn from the inside accurate - speaking of AK's. But just less accurate. I see a lot of SF guys using and praising both. But the AK for it's KISS principle. If your normally only engaging targets in combat at less than 300m. They both will do that. One is just simpler than the other. And is more likely to go bang everytime. And again, easier to get to go bang again. If it messes up. But the AK also eats cinder blocks no problem. Not the same for the AR. Or not as easily.

The AR is harder to keep clean because of it's tolerances, amount of parts, not as easy to break down completely and clean, and the amount of blow back crud in the receiver etc. The AK has such loose tolerances (and not as much crud being forced back into the receiver) a bit of motor oil and your good for a year or more. lol. And the time it would take to get it running would be a lot faster. You can tear down an AK in a matter of seconds.

I could go on for an hour. But I won't. Suffice it to say they both have their roles. I'm almost tempted to say it's apples and oranges. But I don't know. Isn't the US looking at a larger round service rifle? There are advantages to the larger round. Mowing thru cover is one of them. But I also think if your looking for a light combat rifle so you can move quickly on foot (thinking PAW here) the AR has it's advantages. Rifle and ammo weight combined. Not to mention the well spring of parts and ammo left in America. What are the production/import numbers AK vs AR? Ten to one? There's something to be said for that too.

It's a debate that will go on for centuries. If were here that long. lol.
"Ideas are more dangerous than guns. We don't let our people have guns. Why would we let them have ideas?" Josef Stalin

User avatar
moab
* * * * *
Posts: 3664
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2012 7:07 pm

Re: I got the hots for an AK.

Post by moab » Fri Oct 19, 2018 2:03 pm

"Ideas are more dangerous than guns. We don't let our people have guns. Why would we let them have ideas?" Josef Stalin

User avatar
Dabster
* * *
Posts: 786
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2011 12:20 am

Re: I got the hots for an AK.

Post by Dabster » Fri Oct 19, 2018 2:37 pm

This article seemed rather timely: https://www.breachbangclear.com/jtt-a-t ... k-74-mods/

I wish you guys would stop talking about AKs, it's making me want one again...
I am not a 'gray man'. I am a brown man, coyote brown. With FDE highlights, of course.

Post Reply

Return to “Longarms - Shotguns and Rifles”