AR or AK

KNS has come out with a new part for the IWI GALIL ACE
That ACE is the only “AK” I really like. Though I own an under folder Arsenal hahahahha


I reject In ranges tests. Real WWII field test showed the Garand did much better that this silly test.
The main reason I went with a Garand is that My ole man and his buds told me on how it was real hard to make one no work.

During Iwo Jima the ole man burned up his BAR, grabbed an M1 and fired until he found another BAR.
When there were no working BARs, everyone grabbed Garands.

The 6th Marine division had a motto when the ole man who was one of the 356 survivors of a 6600 man unit and the start of the war. He told me he would be alive today if it was not for the Garrand.

The motto: “When your in a jam, Grab an M1 Garrand, it wont”

So As far as AR vs AK. I shot real AKs, and M16s. My preferred firearm will always my the M1.
AKs today are a joke, they are better built than their soviet real ones. They are not anywhere close to be as accurate as ARs, they are better bullet spitters, and thats about it.

Now having said that, we have 3 ARs here. All in 300 blackout (thats how much I dislike the 5.56)
One is for the ole lady, one for the daughter, and one for the grand daughter.
Her Grandpa is still carrying his Garrand.


Those tests must be for fun they are not scientific in anyway. A sample of one , two or even 10 dosnt say much about the overall platform.

The Garand has proven itself in plenty of mud baths on actual battlefields throughout several wars.

I will say our opinions on 5.56 and the AR platform probably differ but I agree with you 100% on the Garand. It’s track record speaks for itself.

My issues with it, from what little ive handled one was:

Mounting optics (aftermarket?)

Ammo selection (aftermarket options fix this)


Do you run an optic on your Garand?


I do like the garand myself. Like the cartridge… but it is heavy. There is no way I want to try to pack 600 let alone 1000 rounds of 30-06 on me.
But I get it. I think it comes down to what are you using it for?
Thus I have more than one BB gun…


I couldn’t have done that even in my 20’s :rofl:


I have about 400 rounds of 556 in mags on me… then I carry spare ammo… hahhahaha


I want to know what tactical pants you wear!


All ya need is Miranda Lambert & her “little red wagon”…


Big ones




Sorry Joe-bob, you can make a M1D, and that is the only way to put an optic on it.

I tired 6 different mounts, a Bushnell scope, folks said it would not zero, it was too cheap.
Next I bought a not cheap Navy contact scope. Same thing, the cross point was not far enough out.
Next I got an Eotech. It worked out to about 200 yards, and I did not like it.

The second scope Is now mounted on a model 700, which does 1/4 inch groups at 200 yard zero. Just not on the M1.

My final change was to National Match sights. They work great in the daylight out to 550 yards (our range limit). Low light or dark, not good. Even with a illuminated front blade, the rear peep is too small for my ole eyes.
When the ship hits the rotary air displacement device, Ill switch it back to the USGI rear sight.

Ammo selection: roll my own. The only store bought odd six around here is from 1903-1919. Have some WWII stuff to. That all will never be shot. Just looked at.

With my brand new NM barrel, I use several pills. The m80 147gr on the low end, and 155gr Amax on the high end. The bread and butter rounds I can not tell you what they are. Some folks may not approve.

All of these pills take 50 gr IMR4895. with CCI 34 primers. Im not fooling around. If I have to hump these, they will count. BTW thats 2680fps on average. You can go higher, but then you are in op rod bending territory.

Weight: My M1 isnt my Dads M1. (WWII Vet). Mine is all black. Ramline polymer stock, the barrel cover has been lightened by drilling holes in it, and a cool pattern.
The muzzle device is a CIA issue flash hider made by Smith Enterprise.
The trigger group was tuned and lightened by the “Garand Man” from Chicago. (RIP)
He also install the match barrel. It shoots real good.

The weight loaded is a few ounces under 8 pounds.
My bolt gun weighs more 9.5lbs.

My loadout is 180 rounds. I can carry more, by running gets tiring fast.
Im not a spring chicken any more, closer to a dead duck.

The ole man said he carried 600 rds of odd six around most of the pacific islands.
He was a teenager, and a big guy. He also was the BAR gunner.
Sure glad my grandson is 20 :slight_smile:


Neat TTAG article


hard to believe but I re-read this how thread from start to finish … Again
things that popped up - Being the only one here that actually used a FN FAL in “combat” or was expected to use one in the time of war - FN still rules over any AK but has to step aside for the more evolved AR platform but maybe it is nostalgia or the fact that I would still hump a FN over my ARs in a SHTF simpley because it I can see you - I can kill you even if you are hiding behind a tree. Course there is something to said about the Tavor (full length barrel but shorter than a 14" ARMALite M15A2)
But I digress - the point of this is the Government of the largest population fielding the largest standing army, strayed away from the AK platform in the 80s and developed their own platform. This is a type 81 which from the exterior resembles the AK but other than fire control there is not a single similarity. Then 16 years later dropped the 7.62x39 and devoloped a committee rifle by people that had no idea what a rifle was - QBZ95/Type97 in 5.8x42 but also found in 5.56x45 to finally settle on the QBZ-191 (if no one has figured it out - we are talking about PRC.


What sort of accuracy standards were required of Canadian soldiers using the FAL variant? Did it change at all with the AR 5.56 variant?


Ive only ever talked to a few people who ran FALs in a serious capacity and all of them loved the platform… I think on the civilian side the issue is the maker not the platform, Century is the most popular :grimacing:

.308 vs 5.56 is definitely a good reason to pick one rifle over another considering the AR10 has no standardisation or mil spec to go off of.

Both are the Right arms of the free world even if the FAL is the only one with the official name.


memory serves me - 90% into 300mm at 300m was the minimum and for the not so good the 7.62 Bic was commonly used for the borderline cases and wither the mess was calling. We had to do at least two quals a year, always seemed late fall / winter and early summer.
You could also qualify out to 1000m which meant some additional coin on the pay check - 50% into 300mm but 100% at roughly 2 1/2 feet square and on the average was 80% or better.
The thing is most of the shooting was done at timed exposures of 3, 5 or 10 seconds and not shooting was a miss.


I didnt realisebthe FAL was capable of that sort of accuracy. What sort of optics were you using? Seem a bit much for an acog or red dot.


simply the Mark 1 EB and setting the diopter to 10


Nice… You shoot far better than me. I was hitting a paper plate at 200 yards with a FAL but thats about as good as I got with it :rofl:


Here is your AKS, or AKM of what letters they put after it.
You and everyone here has not and will not EVER see an AK-47. So stop helping Beto lie about firearms. (yes some have seen them overseas, but they are very old. The last one was made in 1961.

I was part of the Special Weapons Detachment at FT Lewis.
They have real AK-47s, How many does the US Army own?
When I retired in 92 there were 11 complete firearms, which 4 of them worked. 4 more for parts. Thats it.

Its a personal pet peeve. So call a spade a garden tool already.