this post was submitted on 05 Feb 2025
834 points (98.8% liked)
People Twitter
5747 readers
2632 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is such a weird take. AKs also 'just work', most people will never have to hand-fit anything on an AK, and ammo prices for AK are at parity with ammo prices for AR. The cheapest end of anything can be dangerous to the user, so again that's another non-point. The majority of people aren't going to see a major functional difference between the two, it comes down to personal preference.
The gun you're actually describing is the AR-10
Wut? AR-10s have different competing standards, and tend to be strangely finicky. (I've got an AR-10 in 6.5CM; it's really picky about ammunition.) The AR-10 was never adopted by the military; I think that you're thinking of the M-14.
That's because it's going to come assembled (hopefully). But if you ever need to replace a part? Good luck, because you're going to need it. OTOH, when I replaced the barrel, hand guard, trigger, BCG, etc. on my rifle, it was all very much plug-n-play.
They most definitely are not. Ammo prices for 5.56x45mm NATO start as low as 23.7cpr, if you're willing to shoot reman; if you want new, then 30.5cpr. Ammunition for 7.62x39mm starts at 38.9cpr, and that's steel case bi-metal bullets. If you want brass cases, they start at 45cpr. That means that a single 30 round magazine costs about $9.15 for an AR, and $11.67-$13 for an AK.
If you mean the majority of people that buy a rifle and then never use it, sure. If you're talking about people that actually go out and shoot, you're definitely wrong.
An easy example is ballistics. I have a 50/200y zero. I have to aim low and 100y by about 2", and at 500y I'll have about a 45" holdover. My LPVO has hash marks for ranges, and it's mostly right. An AK variant usually has a 25y zero; at 500y, your holdover is at least 80", and as much as 120", depending on the ammunition. You aren't likely going to find too many LPVOs that have holdover marks calibrated for an AK, so you'll probably be eyeballing it with a red dot and a magnifier. You can make hits out to 500y with an AK, but it's going to be a lot harder.
yes, I was saying that an ar-10 fit the poster's description of an AK better than actual AK rifles, for that reason.
That's the best part! I won't! I owned one for years, I could dig post holes with the damn thing. I sincerely regret selling it.
Shipping makes those numbers very fudgy, I see one offer for 7.62 that beats many of the 5.56 offers just by giving free shipping. I'm willing to meet you at 'they're close' but in no way is 5.56 vastly less expensive. Not like 9mm less expensive!
Right, so like I said the vast majority of gun owners. Super Gun Nerds will always have a sincere appreciation for use cases that the vast majority of gun owners will not encounter at any point. Home defense happens under 25 yards. Soft points and a wooded area would give you a hunting experience that grandpa's 30-30 would feel quite comfortable in. They tend to be reliable and even decently accurate until the barrel heats up. They're not the same gun, but it's not a bad gun, and the benefits you're touting are completely overblown. Either one is better than none at all. It's easy to make up an edge case to prove your point, I could probably find an edge case in which AK was fully superior but that's not the point I'm trying to make, the point is for the majority of gun owners would not see a significant difference, and for the edge case users you'll find another edge case waiting to tear your argument down.