It goes bang every time...

[Clod Stomper]

I have a whole long list of gun-related (and non-gun as well) peeves. Here is one of them.

"I'll take an AK to TEOTWAWKI because it goes 'bang' every time I pull the trigger. You could run over it with a tank and it'll still work. Fill it with wet cement, let it cure and all you need to do is kick the bolt loose and it'll still go bang."

Now, don't get me wrong. I value reliability in a firearm. Especially one that I may have to use to defend my life. But if the MOST important thing is that it goes "bang", then I'll carry a pack of firecrackers and a lighter. To me, the most important thing is that my rounds hit their target.

I'm not referring to any specific firearms. Nor do I wish to offend anyone who may have said this very thing. I'm just lambasting one of the dogmatic phrases that pops up in any thread, in any forum, about self-defense tools. I'm going to "swim against the current" and say that I'll take a gun that is 99.5% reliable, but is accurate, user-friendly, and most easily puts bullets into my target.

Will

P.S. I actually just wanted to post my 250th post.

[Garufa]

I'm going to "swim against the current" and say that I'll take a gun that is 99.5% reliable, but is accurate, user-friendly, and most easily puts bullets into my target.

Well, then get an AK.

[piercedan]

Oh, you're just stirring the pot ain't you? :0)

[Steelharp]

Title made me think this was a difference in a girlfriend vs wife thread.

[maroonandwhite]

Well, then get an AK.

[TMF]

The great thing about an AK is that it doesn't require much maintenance. They really don't. Having seen the condition of still functioning AKs in the hands of halfwit cavemen, I don't believe that M-16 series weapons would be good choices in an environment where maintenance might not be an option.

If you maintain your AR it will go bang every time. If you don't it will probably fail quicker than weapons with looser tolerances. No biggie if you have the means to take care of your stuff.

Based on my experience, if I had to arm some fighters who have limited trainability and would be operating in environments where access to cleaning supplies would be nil, AR series rifles would not be my first choice. I kinda think that is what folks mean when referencing going "bang" each time.

[mikegideon]

Oh, you're just stirring the pot ain't you? :0)

Stirring it with his AK. As you know, it will still go bang when he's done . And, it will hit the target if it's big enough.

[quietguy]

Title made me think this was a difference in a girlfriend vs wife thread.

Now that is funny

[Dolomite_supafly]

AK's are accurate, end of story. It is the ammo that makes them inaccurate. The same thing can be said about AR's as well.

Take thd average AK and the average AR. Feed them both Tula and Wolf. The results are going to surprise you. I know I would be tickled to have 223 Tula shoot under 4" at 100 yards.

Accuracy, regardless of weapon type, is all about what you feed them. I have seen AK's that would hit man sized steel targets 7 out of 10 times at 350 yards. They where being feed ammo that had the correct sized bullets.

And BTW, every commercial 7.62x39 ammo I have measured the bullet on has been .308" and not .311" like it should be. This is why AK's over here shoot so bad. Buy some correct surplus ammo and they are as accurate as most AR's shooting our "surplus" ammo.

Dolomite

[JAB]

To me, the most important thing is that my rounds hit their target.

Consider, though, that if the gun doesn't 'go bang' then the bullet will never leave the barrel - meaning that there is zero chance that it will hit your target. Therefore, going 'bang' is a prerequisite to hitting your target without which there is no way the target will be hit.

Now, consider that you could slightly miss your 'target' (i.e. hit an assailant in the stomach instead of the heart, etc.) and still likely be effective. However, when it comes to the point that the only way to stop the threat is to shoot then a gun that doesn't 'go bang' will not be effective.

Therefore, through the application of logic - due to 'hitting the target' being directly dependent on 'going bang' and due to the possibility that a poor hit could still be effective while an unfired bullet has no chance of bringing about the desired outcome, reliably 'going bang' is more important than extreme accuracy.

Edited October 8, 2012 by JAB

[Jonnin]

If you are far enough away to be aiming and serious about hitting a target, you have time to clear a dud or jam. If you are 10 feet away, even a smoothbore would hit.

[Hershmeister]

Get a bolt gun if you want to ensure reliability. Far fewer moving parts

[Clod Stomper]

I knew that I shouldn't mention "AK". My main point, besides stirring up discussion, was that going "bang" every time is not the sole criteria on which I base my gun of choice for self-defense. That's just me. And JAB is absolutely right. If the gun doesn't fire, there is no chance of hitting the target. What I choose is what I know will run right pretty much all the time, even with an occasional hiccup, but what I am absolutely sure will but a round on target at the distance for which it's intended.

But since I made the mistake of mentioning the Kalashnikov, I'll get specific. I realize, as Dolomite says, that perceived inaccuracy is caused by bad ammo, mechanically. There is also the issue of inferior sights, poor ergonomics (for me) and weight (the user-friendliness that I mentioned before).

BTW, I have a MAK-90, supposedly one of the better ones. It jammed right out of the box. It took some time with a Dremel on the trunnion(?) before it would feed a single round. I know that this isn't common, but it happened.

Conversely, the only malfunction I've had that wasn't ammo related with an AR was after shooting it dry for several hundred rounds. Cleaned and lubed it and all was well. Better sights, lighter, more ergonomic, longer range round. While I hope I don't have to engage Zombies at 600 yards, it's nice to know that I have a rifle that is capable of it.

I carry a Glock 31. I have little doubt that it will never jam. And it should be plenty accurate (as long as I stay away from Winchester White Box). But it just doesn't fit my hand well. And I really don't like the trigger. I can probably live with the trigger if I install a 3.5 pound connector. I may look at having the grip reshaped because I just really like it otherwise. But if I can't get it to "fit", I'll have to go to something else. I carried a 1911 for years before I switched to the Glock. It did jam on rare occasion, but I had no trouble hitting a target with it, even with a short barrel.

Believe me, I had no intention of this being an AK vs AR debate. I've already made my choice. Just slaying some sacred cows, while using as many platitudes as I can think of.

Will

[Links2k]

I have a whole long list of gun-related (and non-gun as well) peeves. Here is one of them.

"I'll take an AK to TEOTWAWKI because it goes 'bang' every time I pull the trigger. You could run over it with a tank and it'll still work. Fill it with wet cement, let it cure and all you need to do is kick the bolt loose and it'll still go bang."

Now, don't get me wrong. I value reliability in a firearm. Especially one that I may have to use to defend my life. But if the MOST important thing is that it goes "bang", then I'll carry a pack of firecrackers and a lighter. To me, the most important thing is that my rounds hit their target.

I'm not referring to any specific firearms. Nor do I wish to offend anyone who may have said this very thing. I'm just lambasting one of the dogmatic phrases that pops up in any thread, in any forum, about self-defense tools. I'm going to "swim against the current" and say that I'll take a gun that is 99.5% reliable, but is accurate, user-friendly, and most easily puts bullets into my target.

Will

P.S. I actually just wanted to post my 250th post.

I'm also a fan of Glocks.

[daddyo]

For Pete's sake, it's just an expression.

[10-Ring]

I heard a story from a guy that was in Vietnam. They had a captured AK in their camp, every once in a while they would pull it out and play with it. They had shot corrosive ammo in it and put it away, of course Vietnam has the perfect conditions for corrosion. They would pull the rifle out, kick open the rusted shut bolt, insert a mag and empty it. It would just go once you knocked the rust off of it.

[JeffL]

I sold my AK74, but it was 100% reliable same as my AR.

[Ratfink]

I've had very expensive ar rifles jam on me after 1k rounds or so but not my ak rifles. They never stop and they group at 100 yards just as well as my Noveske or knights rifles.

[Jonnin]

I heard a story from a guy that was in Vietnam. They had a captured AK in their camp, every once in a while they would pull it out and play with it. They had shot corrosive ammo in it and put it away, of course Vietnam has the perfect conditions for corrosion. They would pull the rifle out, kick open the rusted shut bolt, insert a mag and empty it. It would just go once you knocked the rust off of it.

I know a vet who said the first thing a lot of the men did was loot an AK to use because the issued guns had problems.

[Guest aknut]

I have a couple AK's and one AR. never had feed issues with any of them.

The blade style sights suck on the AK, but are easily to get used to. mag changes are quicker with the AR IMO, but overall, both weapons are great platforms

and perform as needed out to 200 or 300 yards with iron sights.

I prefer the AK over the AR due to lower cost, less parts to fix/replace and cheap ammo.