AK VS. AR

The endless argument. I have searched and searched for a definative answer to this question and to this date I have not found one. I always get partisan rhetoric from one side or the other and it grows tiresome hearing about the accuracy of the AR and the reliability of the AK. Well I am going to compare the stats of each and let you decide. Even though I am going to give my opinion in the end. First of all lets decide what the criteria is going to be for the comparason. The rifles were built to be battle rifles. Plain and simple. They weren't meant to be varmint killers or anything else. They were meant to kill people in a battlefield environment so that is where the guns are going to be compared at. Not the range. Not off of the hood of your daddys chevy out on the plains. As you can see I have already stacked the deck against the AR. The AR-15 was designed with just a few stipulations in mind. It had to be .22 caliber, it had to be select fire, (full auto or semi) and it had to be able to penetrate a steel helmet at 500 yards. Pretty broad but in the light of what was around and available at the time an entirely new platform had to be developed. The M-14 was the best the US had in terms of a mainline battle rifle at the time. Of course it had short commings, such as being heavy, long, and utilizing a .308 round that had way too much recoil for full auto applications. Personaly I think the M-14 is the most beautiful rifle ever designed. All around it has no equal. But I am getting off on a tangent. The Army needed a short, compact, rifle that had little recoil, could hit targets out to 500 yards, was modular, and used the light, but potent, .223 cartridge. The Armalite AR-15 filled that description perfectly. Originaly the AR-15 was touted as not needing to be cleaned due to its chrome plated components. However that was with the expensive ammo that Mr. Stoner was using to test the rifle at the proving grounds. The Government decided to replace the expensive ammunition with a cheaper brand and send the rifle out to the troops. In the AR-15's first time out, there are stories of GI's being killed with their rifles dismantled in front of them trying deperately to clear the jams. Thus the bad rep for the AR began. Cleaning kits were sent out immediately and the problem for the most part was solved but the AR still was designed with very close tolerances and still proved to jam from time to time due to environmental and battlefield conditions. I have several former Army Buddies that contest that you couldn't fire the weapon more than 40 or 50 times before they would jam up. I find this hard to believe but that is what they say. Over the years the AR was improved and has developed an impressive resume`. But still the reliability issue nips at its heals. Now the AK-47 also had its share of growing pains, but it has not been dogged by its early failiers as the AR-15 is. The early AK-47s were constructed using milled parts but were too ridged and so the recievers cracked. This problem was corrected with the advent of a stamped sheet metal reciever. It made the weapon easier and cheaper to produce plus increased the reliability of the rifle. The Russian factories began cranking these weapons out to the rest of the world trying to export the revolution to the poor masses. It is estimated that there have been over 30 million AK-47s produced around the world. At the beginning of the Vietnam war to the surprise of the Know It Alls in Washington the Vietnames had the US Military outgunned (at the squad level) and out numbered. In Vietnam it was man against man. Tanks, airpower, technology had their effects greatly muted by the jungles and by politicians. Such is the nature of modern warfare. Just in time the AR-15 came in to save the day and in alot of ways did exactly that. The Russians were so impressed by the user friendly .223 caliber that they started their own program to develop a small caliber, highpower rifle cartridge. In 1974 they got it in the 5.45x39 AK-74. Too late to make an impact in Vietnam but used extensively in Afghanistan. It's interesting to note that many AR-15s were shipped back to the USSR but the design of the AK-74 remained almost exactly the same as the AK-47. The Russians, being notorious copycats when it came to weapon design, largely ignored the AR-15. In Afghanistan the 5.45x39 caliber proved its metal against the Mujahadeen with great effect. The .223 AR-15 is still maligned for its lack of stopping power. In Vietnam, Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq War 1 and 2, everywhere it goes, it is said that with the AR-15 you hit your target but with little or no visible affect. With the M-14 or M-1 the targets went down when hit. Of course you are dealing with a .30 caliber bullet that is 3 times the size of the .223. But the 5.45x39 cartridge of the AK-74 does not have this problem. The answer is that the 5.45x39 cartridge is designed with an airpocket in the nose of the bullet that is stable when in flight but upon impact moves forward destabilizing the projectile and causing it to tumble almost immediatly. Or just over two inches into the body or limb. The .223 bullet travels almost 6 inches before it begins to tumble. When you are shooting at malnourished Somailis the bullets are just passing through the little skinny bastards bodies before causing any massive trauma. So I know what you are saying. You are saying that I am comparing two different rifles to the AR-15. Well not really. If we are comparing the AK-47 of the 60's to the AR-15 of the 60's the AK wins hands down. Of course the weapons have morphed over the decades into much better killing machines than they ever were at their inception. So to compare the M4-A2 (AR-15) to the 100 series (AK-47) of today you see two rifles that are solid performers on the battlefield. If I was going to take a rifle to the range I would immdiately pick the AR-15. The reason would be because of the percieved notion that the AR-15 is more accurate than the AK. Not true. The most likely cause of the inaccuracy of the AK is crappy ammo. The ammo fed to AR-s has to be good stuff or it won't cycle. While the AK eats Wolf, Silver Bear, Bulgarian, don't matter. If you put match ammo in an AK it performs very well in comparison to the AR. So it really is up to the user what he wants to shoot. If you want to shoot prarie dogs then the AR-15 is the rifle for you. If you want to keep your ass alive when being pinned down by Iraqis in a gutted burned out building, I'd take the AK variant of your choice. Was I objective enough? Reading over this it don't look like it does it! :)