I have an AK and want another but I also want an AR.
My personal preference is the AK due to it's simplicity and reliablity.

***NOTE*** This isn't a slugfest but rather a seeking of the Pros and Cons of each platform.

I voted AK, its proven battle capable, can be taken into just about any operational theater and keep firing, Low cost and built to last.

I plan on building an AR for hunting as with a change of the upper I can go from small game all the way to elk. The weight of the AR is better as I am a fairly small guy. Reliability of the AK is famous, but for reliability I currently have a fa91 which I love but it is a little heavy but working on that now. My other is a mini 14 which is my replacement for the AR until I build it up.

psysage

I got both. The Saiga I have yet to convert that. The next AK is going to be a Underfolder.

My vote is for the AR. Although it isnt used by every third world country out there like the ak, it has been battle proven as well. I have met several men who will tell you thier m16 is the reason they are alive today. It is a simple firearm that is easy to work on, has easily avaiable parts, and can be modified into anything you want. I also think there is a sense of history with an ar as well. American Soldiers have carried the m16's into battle for quite a few years now. Though some may argue that it isnt the best platform ever, there is no doubt that those weapons have been part of changing world history.

My second reason, I am sure is going to be even less popular than the first, so please dont flame me.
I will not buy an AK because there is not one that is American made. I truly believe in it is harmfull to both our economy and our country to send our money to foreign arms dealers. I certainly dont see any possible benfit from doing so other than getting an inexpensive rifle. I do repspect that everyone doesnt feel that way though, and it is just my opinion.

You realize, that the current "Colt" M-16s and M-4s AND Beretta M9s are now made by Fabrique National, right? IN North Carolina.

Yes, they are all American made. Beretta is Italian.
But...Fabrique National..is European owned.


As far as flaming you, never happen. You have to realize the money YOU spend does not go to the actual "end user" It goes to your dealer, then to thier distributor, and THEIR main distributor....

As confusing as politics...

No flames here, it's your money, your opinion and your gun, besides this post is about Pros and Cons.

The reason I selected the AK over the AR is pure functionality, the AK will function were the AR will choke from environmental contaminates or just plain cold temps. I also believe in spending my dollars to support home based companies but I have to remain with the living in order to do so. So I pick the best tool for the mission at hand and if it happens to be a over seas manufactured item then so be it. But the one thing is even buying a imported item is that you still support the local FFL when you buy that item from him, he supports the local distributor who supports the local importer. Only then does any dollars leave the country to go to the manufacturer and I have directly supported three local U.S. companies with my purchase.

I chose the AK . They are so simple to keep going. They have been cleaned with diesel fuel and lubed with motor oil and still keep working . I know that they are not as acurate as the AR , but where I live 100-200 yds. is about the max. Anything longer distance I will get the bolt action .
Spot

I went with AK, they are just ubber reliable.

I would chose the AR. I am compitent enough to keep it going in any environment. Yes the AK can be used by the most incompetent, uneducated third world living persons. But the acuracy of the AR Simplicity once you learn the workings and understanding of functionality.

It is a superior tool. Shoots more acuratly and farther. Thus I am here at home instead of a body bag. Many a time had an enemy had a weapon of equal accuracy and abillity to reach the distance I'd be for worse.

Some times you need to way the choices. Maybe the AK is the best choice for you as you may not be capable of maintaining an AR or may not have the skills nessessary to use it beyond 400YRDS.

I am not talking to any one, just a statement in general.

TO ME the AR is the choice I would go with. For some of my freinds had I had to choose they would get the AK, as it would best suit there ability to maintane the weapon and fit there shooting ability.

I voted "Other". I prefer something with the durability and reliability of the AK, the accuracy of the AR, plus the power of a larger caliber. The M-14 or M-1 come to mind as first choices, a secondary choice would be one of the new mini-14s.


Matt

I have 2 AK's and both have never given me no problems whatsoever no matter how much punishment they get. Once I procure the money I will probably buy an AR.

I voted AK. Simple, reliable, accurate ENOUGH at practical ranges and (in the standard 7.62mm chambered version) a more powerful round fired. It is a foreign designed and largely foreign made weapon. However, I have to choose what I feel is the best equipment to help keep me and my family alive. I wish it were American, but it's not. It has always struck me as somewhat ironic that in every poll I have ever seen these weapons - the products of one of historys most repressive political systems - is usually the first choice for people exercising their Second Amendment rights in historys greatest and most free democracy.

I voted AK... I love ARs, but they are WAY too maintenance intensive.

I'll vote AK, many reasons already listed, some not.

My Saiga in x39 is decent to 200 yds, of course not optimal, but good, and with practice would probaly go further with the proper "kentucky windage" as it were, haha.

My biggest decision on a vote between the two however would be penetration, the 5.56 NATO just doesn't have the penetration the x39 has, period.

It doesn't matter how far you can shoot if it won't penetrate the target well enough to do the job.

That's my $.02

I'm going to vote AK, but reluctantly. I really like ARs and have had several; I think they're a better and more versatile platform than the AK and are much more fun to alter/modify.

But, for today, I'd choose an AK74 variant. Ammo is under 15 cents a round--time to stock up and shoot cheap for years!

I voted AR. I know all of the issues concerning maintenance, but did you ever try to aim an AK? What did you hit? I don't care what you say, the accuracy of the AR far outweights any cleaning and maintenance that may have to go along with it. AKs, in my opinion, are for spray-and-pray situations -- which is important. I mean supressive fire power will cause you to keep your head down, but an AR can handle that on burst too... and without wasting all that ammo.

Ak for the close stuff and a Remington 700 BDL with a 6 power scope in 30-06 glass bedded for the rest.

I do love the old M16A1/2's. And I have shot the Russian/Soviet AK47's a fair amount. I like the AK's too.
I did vote AK. But if I could have found an AR type rifle in .308 Win. new at around $750 I would have voted AR.
As it turns out I was in the process of getting a Yugo AK from www.classicarms.us when I got word that they would be getting in a small shipment of CETME rifles that are .308 Win. friendly for $580. The CETME ought to be here late this week or early next week.
And I went and looked at a Romainian WASR10 that a guy has fo sale. I might be able to pick it up for $150.