Saiga .223 AK

[jdwolf]

I recently bought a new Saiga .223 AK with a 20 inch barrel.  I took it to the range yesterday and fired 65 rounds through it using 3 different brands of ammo, PMC, Silver Bear, and American Eagle, all were 55 grain.  The rifle performed perfectly, no jams, no misfires, no FTF, and is very accurate. I think the Saiga .223 is a great alternative to the AR, not better but just as good for about half the price. I paid $445.00 OTD for my new Saiga .223.

[John R.]

Just as good as an AR for half the money? Maybe, more than likely not. The AR platform has proven itself in every type of climate and terain for over 40 years. You can put any accessory you want on an AR platform, mags are cheap, and God forbid, should the SHTF, there will be a lot of them around. Just my 2 cents worth. YMMV

[jdwolf]

Just as good as an AR for half the money? Maybe, more than likely not. The AR platform has proven itself in every type of climate and terain for over 40 years. You can put any accessory you want on an AR platform, mags are cheap, and God forbid, should the SHTF, there will be a lot of them around. Just my 2 cents worth. YMMV

  Nothing against AR's,  I like them.  But, the AK is a much more reliable weapon. There are just as many after market assessories available for the AK as there is for the AR's.  Both are excellent weapons, it just a matter of which you like the best!

[jlwilliams]

  Saiga is good for the money.  Years back I bought a bunch of Wolf 223 ammo.  After shooting some through my AR, then cleaning it, I set the Wolf ammo aside.  Years later I scored a 223 Saiga and it performs flawlessly with the lacquer coated ammo.  I don't know if it's true of all or even most AR rifles but mine just didn't like the lacquered case ammo and it was just dirty.  I've heard other people say the same, but I've also heard of people who shoot just Wolf trough their ARs.  Don't know. I feed the Russian ammo to Russian guns and just feed brass cased ammo to my AR.  Seems to work OK for me.
 
  I'm not going to fall for the "AR vs AK" debate.  I think it's foolish.  Get one, get the other or get both.  Whatever you like.  This is America, you can have whatever guns you can afford.  Which one is better?  Flawed question.  If the 20th Century taught us anything it was that when a guy with an AK fights a guy with an AR, whichever guy lands the first good hit wins.   If you are betting that the other guy's AR will jam or that the other guy can't hit you with his AK, either one is a bad bet.
 
  I will say this, my 223 Saiga is way more accurate than most AK's that I've shot.  Third world battle rifles cut up and rebuilt by American importers are not in the same league as a Russian made gun specifically built for the American shooting public.  Ahmed in the streets of Mogidishu may be able to get an AK with a happy switch that we can't get but he can't get the accuracy and overall quality that we expect and get.  You walk into an American gun store with a checkbook and you will get a much better grade of rifle and ammo that Ahmed will ever handle.
 
  As accurate as an AR?  I don't know.  I'd have to really try side by side with equal ammo and so on.  The Saiga is certainly as accurate as a Mini 14, maybe better than some because the Minis are inconsistent in my experience.  I'd say the Saiga compares favorably with the Mini14.  Similar configuration, every bit as accurate maybe better, and much beter parts and accessory availability.  Only thing the Mini has over the Saiga is American made and stainless as an option.
 
  One of these days I'll get a scope mount for the Saiga and really see what it can do accuracy wise.

[Bugflipper]

Just as good as an AR for half the money? Maybe, more than likely not. The AR platform has proven itself in every type of climate and terrain for over 40 years. You can put any accessory you want on an AR platform, mags are cheap, and God forbid, should the SHTF, there will be a lot of them around. Just my 2 cents worth. YMMV

Sorry John R. That statement is a bit off. No other platform has been plagued with more problems than the M16 platform and made it 40 some years. It has had trouble in every major conflict it has been in. If anything it has proven to kill troops due to jamming. The forward assist should be an indication. No other currently manufactured weapon for a modern nation needs one. Most nations want to field the best they can make or afford. It is the best it has ever been currently. Jams are down, but they still don't like sand. No other military has a weapon with a door to cover the action either btw.
They shoot a varmint cartridge. The barrel has been reduced to 14.5" which reduced energy. The bullet was changed to a thicker jacket and penetrator tip that fragments to less of a degree and less of a distance than the old 55 fmj did in soft targets. So now they have a varmint gun that will run pretty good, as long as sand doesn't get in the chamber, has reduced trauma to target due to lower velocity and less fragmentation and this is 40 some years of tweaking to get it there. The AR definitely proven quite a bit about our bureaucrats and senior military officials. Wouldn't go as far as to say it has proven itself in every type of climate and terrain. History has shown the opposite.

[Mikey]

The AK-47 started life as a battle rifle.  The AR started life as a survival rifle for air crews.  They are not the same nor equals.  Where the AR fails the AK continues on.  The ARs must be kept clean to reliably function.  The Soviet 5.45x39 round is claimed to be better than the 5.56x45 round.   If the poo hits the propeller blades I'm grabbing a AK.  If I need a AR there will be plenty on the ground. 

[Singleshotsam]

The reason the AR has gotten so many soldiers killed has little to do with the platform's design and much to do with the military making changes that caused it to fail.
 
A few of the issues that caused the failure of early AR's
 
- The big one... Using surplus powder designed for the m14 platform rather than the powder designated by Eugene Stoner.
- Lack of forward assists.
- Lack of chrome lining
- Lack of cleaning
- Lack of lubrication.
 
Since the AR has undergone these crucial changes it has become a proven battle rifle.  I would take a properly maintained AR into battle any day.  I've owned both AR's and AK's.  I give the nod to the AR as the superior weapon in the hands of a person that knows how to take care of one.  I found the AK to be crude, clunky along with poor accuacy.  I will say that you can literally feed an AK any ammo and it will digest it but that does little good if all you can do is pull a trigger and hope it hits something.

[Bugflipper]

It was not my intention to turn this into another AR vs. AK thread. I just stated that the M16 platform is not what most harken to back as it being. The A1 reduced the jamming, it did not fix it. Throughout the late 60's and early 70's many things were tried to prevent it. Soldiers were told to run 16 rounds in a 20 round mag, it still jammed. A heavier buffer and spring were issued out, it still jammed. New bolts were issued out. Heavier magazine springs, better followers,,,,, so on and so forth. The A2 is where the M16 started to do well. That was the mid 80's. The sand reared it's ugly head in Desert Storm. The M-4 was supposed to be the be all end all to the cycling issues with sand. It had an improved bolt design, feed ramps, a heavier buffer to slow the cyclic rate down a bit, increased pressure to the bolt and so on. It is as good as the platform has ever been in service. They still jammed in Afghanistan and Iraq. The military is courting new designs and calibers with more energy. But odds are they will retrofit them with a piston kit eventually. Which will help tremendously with proper function. But it's still beating a dead horse. Again the dust shield and forward assist should be an indication of the Achilles hill the platform has.


Now lets turn it into an AR vs. AK. AR owners like to stick up for the m16 platform because their current style AR goes bang when they pull it out of the safe, go to the range and fire it in semi auto. They like to compare their post 2000 cnc manufactured AR to a 1959 updated ak-47, AKM style. Forget that it started being phased out in the mid 70's. The sad part is the 40 plus year old design hangs well with their new production AR rifle. Since the market is flooded with parts kit AKs assembled by companies with questionable reputations, this makes the comparison even more helpful for the debate. A parts kit AK will usually run 4-5" or so with poor ammo. A quality ak clone will shrink considerably, by half with a good trigger and decent ammo. Update to the 70's 5.45 caliber and even the parts kit ak-74s are not far off from an AR. Go with a quality ak-74 clone, a quality akm 5.56 clone, saiga in 5.45 or 5.56 or a galil in .223 and you are right in the ballpark of a  m-4 clone. Update to 1994 for the AK style vs. real M4 comparison and the AN-94 tears the M-4 apart.
It's fine to compare a rifle design that hasn't had any real update in 40 years and has been all but out of service by the original country for 25 years or so though, it is a fair comparison to the m16 platform. When you raise the bar to a 70's design it starts getting unfair. Update to present and the debate turns one sided so it's best kept to a 40 year gap between platforms. 


Please don't take my comments personal. I am just having a little fun. I don't ever get to debate with anyone much on here because I am mellow. Just wanted to be contrary for this discussion.   
Have a good day guys.

[Singleshotsam]

I'm not disagreeing with you that a quality AK will cut the typical AK in half.  Talk to anybody that owns an Arsenal.  I'm also not going to get into the AN-94 debate because there is little cause to adapt that discussion as there is no civilian market for it.  But for most people on this forum (which we will classify as cheap AK vs. cheap AR)  given the choice between the Century Arms AK and say a low end AR in the same price range, I'd rather have the AR.  It can still be retrofitted with better quality parts and proper milspec upgrades such as bolt and reciever staking. 
 
You seem to know your stuff so there's actually little I can debate on except the fact that a retrofit piston kit on an AR platform is a horrible idea.  Most piston kits on AR's do more harm to the parts system of the gun and actually reduces reliablitly.  Theres a couple different reasons for this downfall in reliability.  I'll just post an article of the problem explained so that other people can read about it.  It's a nice overview of how the AR system works and the issues caused by piston conversions. 
 
http://vuurwapenblog.com/2009/10/21/the-failed-promise-of-the-piston-ar-15-conversion/

[Bugflipper]

That was a good article Sam.

[John R.]

The AR's work just fine these days. Cleaning is a must in the desert. Many tests have been run with the piston design vs direct impingement system. The DI system made it through the tests just fine. Trials for a new rifle will be a debate for a long time. Can you imagine how much money it would cost to go to a brand new rifle and accessories? Is the AR THE BEST, probably not, but what are you going to change to that is significantly better as far as how much ammo a man can carry, to accuracy, to lethality. I don't see them changing anytime soon.

[teamnelson]

Just as good as an AR for half the money? Maybe, more than likely not. The AR platform has proven itself in every type of climate and terain for over 40 years. You can put any accessory you want on an AR platform, mags are cheap, and God forbid, should the SHTF, there will be a lot of them around. Just my 2 cents worth. YMMV

Everything said here can be said of the AK, except the AK is a design that's been around for over 60 years, and has been more widely fielded in combat conditions than the AR, by the numbers.

Of the AKs, the Saiga is coveted as the best quality for the $, using a quality build receiver from the original AK factory in Russia - Arsenal's SGL line is built off of Saiga frames.

The only downside of a .223 AK is propietary mags, but they're about the same price as a quality AR mag.

[John R.]

AR 223 or AK 223, doesn't matter to me which one you have, as long as you have one of them, you're better off than the guy who doesn't have anything. For what it's worth, I would like to have one of those Arsenal AK-47's. A friend has one, and they are well built.

[ironglow]

The reason the AR has gotten so many soldiers killed has little to do with the platform's design and much to do with the military making changes that caused it to fail.
 
A few of the issues that caused the failure of early AR's
 
- The big one... Using surplus powder designed for the m14 platform rather than the powder designated by Eugene Stoner.
- Lack of forward assists.
- Lack of chrome lining
- Lack of cleaning
- Lack of lubrication.
 
Since the AR has undergone these crucial changes it has become a proven battle rifle.  I would take a properly maintained AR into battle any day.  I've owned both AR's and AK's.  I give the nod to the AR as the superior weapon in the hands of a person that knows how to take care of one.  I found the AK to be crude, clunky along with poor accuacy.  I will say that you can literally feed an AK any ammo and it will digest it but that does little good if all you can do is pull a trigger and hope it hits something.

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
 
  SSS has 'nailed it' right there..  Any problems the M16 suffered in Vietnam was the fault of the military..not Stoner.  The military rejected Stoner's advice as to powder, they used ball powder, just as he told them NOT to do.  Secy defense McNamara (ex Ford beancounter) ejected Stoner's advice to chrome line the bore for humid use.
  I don't know much about the ARs, my rifles are all plain sporting rifles.  However, I have an excellent source in my grandson for such info and have checked this debate with him.
  His qualifications; Marine armorer for 8 years, deployments in Iraq (Spec Ops) with experience in all small arms involved there.
  He went on to furthe gunsmith studies and now works with a civilian contractor in a job very much like the "Sons of Guns" series as shown on TV.
  He told me that yes, there could be some problems yet with an M16 or M4 when used without proper maintenance, whereas the AKs would function while quite dirty.  The explanation for this is really quite simple...closer tolerances in the M16.   Grains of sand can jam a a .001" clearance easier than it can a a .010" clearance.  The tradeoff ?..The rifle made with closer tolerances will shoot/score better.  If you use an AR in "powder sand" conditions, use lube with CLP in the formula (e.g. Break-Free)
   
    Apparently the lesson here is ..as long as you keep your weapon reasonably clean..you will shoot better with an M16 platform.  He says for combat use, he would rather have 1 M16 than 3 AKs..he's used both and many others too.
 
  So why do the terrorists use AKs ?  Simple, they are cheap and will function, even after gross neglect.  Accuracy..no big deal, most terrorists "pray & spray" anyway.
  When a highly professional foreign army (such as Israel) buys rifles, why do they pay twice as much for M16s ?  I think the answer is obvious.
  Why do predator hunters use the AR platform instead of the AK ?   Again..obvious..
 
  All that being said, I am quite sure the Saigas available here are a much better piece than the insurgents AK..plus now and then there is likely to be exceptionally accurate examples. Probably a good buy.
  There are other great battle rifles, such as the H&K...but they are costly too..you get what you pay for..
 
  Until I get someone who is more experienced and I trust more than my grandson (not likely), I must take his word on the subject.
 

[Singleshotsam]

You can't go wrong with either as a battle rifle.  My current go to gun is an AK varient.  Both choices have seen extensive combat and both are reliable.  Both are combat accurate to their intended distances of 300 yards.  Granted there are pros and cons to either choice but as long as there is one or the other in your gunsafe then be happy

[ironglow]

  I'm not saying the Saiga is not good.  Undoubtedly, a quality built AK variant such as Saiga is a competent rifle.  My point is that ARs cost more for a reason..and they are better rifles than some seem to think they are.

[teamnelson]

For civilian use, I think the AR is a great range and varmint weapon. Presently all of our guns come out of the safe, into a case, securely carried in the field, returned to case and most likely cleaned at the end of the day. Very very few of us will treat it the way the Military does, and they have a huge logistics tail to compensate for that.

If however life were to change and we no longer had the luxury of time and materials to keep the weapon well cared for, the value of the AR will diminish and the Saiga will become more desirable. That 20" barrel vs. the 16" was a good choice too, and I'd not be surprised if your accuracy was on par with a stock entry level AR.

Quality AKs will go neck and neck with ARs in price and performance. If someone would make a budget AR that was priced under $400 with the performance and reliability of a Saiga (not a Rommie) then I think we'd have an apples to apples market.

[John R.]

I just read an article written by Patrick Sweeney, where he took 4 AR's and totally abused them. He threw them off of a 2 story building, across asphalt and gravel parking lots, he even ran across them with a F250 Diesel. Oh yeah he also shot them with 12 gauge birdshot. All 4 guns (2 piston, 2 DI) continued to run. The AR is not nearly as fragil as people think, and they will outshoot an AK any day of the week.

[Singleshotsam]

I'd like a link to that article.  I'm a big AR fan but I seriously doubt that all that happened to an AR and it kept running.

[John R.]

The magazine is called Book of the AR/15. It has a red cover. I bought it at the grocery store yesterday, so it's current. This is his second test. They said his first one was not harsh enough, that's why he did this one. He provided lots of pictures, other than that, I can't say, as I wasn't there. The name of the article is, AR ABUSE: THE FINAL CHAPTER. If you google the name of the article it will come up.

[teamnelson]

I like those abuse tests, they're always fun! You don't see as many done to AKs, probably because the reliability of AKs is taken for granted. What you'll find done with AKs are accuracy or long distance tests, probably because that's the perceived weakness of the AK, while the accuracy of the AR is taken for granted. It's pretty cool to see a 16" barreled AK ring a steel gong at 600 yds, just like it is to see an F-250 roll over an AR.

What those tests don't account for though is sustained abuse, which the military has become the leading expert on. I've had access to the longevity testing reports developed in the Marine Corps, because I worked for the guy who had the job of finding a replacement for the M4. Cost of ownership to the Marine Corps is fairly high per weapon, and they are draconian about maintenance. Its much higher than any civilian would probably want to invest in their primary weapon, but then again, we don't subject our weapons to the same sustained abuse.

[jdwolf]

  I'm not saying the Saiga is not good.  Undoubtedly, a quality built AK variant such as Saiga is a competent rifle.  My point is that ARs cost more for a reason..and they are better rifles than some seem to think they are.

  I like AR's,  I'm not knocking them,  but I disagree with your comment.  First of all,  I don't see Saiga's as an AK variant.  They may not come with a pistol grip but they are an AK nonetheless,  made in Russia's arsenal Izhmash factory.   AK's are the quintessential battle rifle made to withstand inclimate weather of all types and require little to no maintainence to keep them functioning,  even today's AR's can't hold a candle to that!   

[jlwilliams]

First of all,  I don't see Saiga's as an AK variant. 

  ?
 
  If not an AK variant, than what?

[NYH1]

AK47's jam and don't fire all the time too. The Russians don't use the 7.62x39mm round anymore or the AK47 for that matter. They haven't used either in years. They use the AK74 which fires the 5.45x39mm round.

 
The biggest problem with the M16's when they were first issued was they used a ball powder "against" Stoners recommendation, that wasn't designed for hot and humid climates. Everyone I've ever talk to that was there said Vietnam was very hot and very humid. Stoner also told them NOT to add the forward assist. Another big problem with the M16's when they were first issued was the way and how maintenance was recommended to be preformed on them. A LOT of units didn't get an M16 until they arrived in Vietnam. Had absolutely no experience with them until that time. Some units were told they were self cleaning, other units were told they only needed to be clean after so many rounds. Other units that were issued them before going to Vietman were told and shown how to clean and maintain their M16's, they had very little problems with them once the correct powder was used.

 
If it wasn't for a gooker's AK47 jamming and my dad's M16 working 100% correctly, I wouldn't be typing this right now. M16/M4 rifle and carbines do alright in the sand too. Go to a AR15/M16/M4 deicated sites and talk to troops that have a tour or tours in Iraq or Afghanistan (I know a few) and ask them how their M16/M4's worked. Most will tell you it wasn't the sand that stopped them.  It was running them dry that stopped them.  Most will tell you that if you keep them wet, they were very happy with them and good to go.

 
NYH1.

[ironglow]

NYH1;
     I don't own an AR, my time in the military was with the M1 Garrand and the M14.   All I can attest to is what my grandson who was an armorer with Marine Spec Ops operating in the Sunni Triangle for 2 deployments.  He had to keep all infantry weapons  functioning under the worst combat conditions.  He told me the M16 platform was far superior to the AK base.  He was also a designated sniper when such was needed..so accuracy was (and as a gunsmith today) still is paramount.  The AR service rifle is more accurate, has more available modifications and is of superior manufacture.
  One way the AK likely comes off better, is that it will withstand more neglect.  How many of us plan on treating our guns with  neglect ?