AR vs. AK vs. G36

These are the 3 types of assault rifles i have seen commonly used, and i believe that they all have advantages and disadvantages. I do not mean for this to be a debate, but I would like to get to better know the pros and cons for each weapon type. I will update this as quickly as I can every time a new reply is added. Look forward to hearing from you all (I am generally talking about stock weapons. not tacti-cool upgraded weapons)

AR type weapons:
Pros: Easily upgraded, customized, and repaired; Good balance; Good accuracy; Can be any size (barrel, stock, etc.); Decent general mag size
Cons: Very popular (pro or con); Charging handle is located in a bad place

AK type weapons:
Pros: Classic look; Easy wooden stock capability; Moderately easy to find repairs or upgrades; incredibly durable; easy to use; Best general mag size
Cons: Bulky; Not easily customized (although possible); less accuracy; Most commonly known gun of all time (pro or con)

G36 type weapons:
Pros: Lightweight; Charging handle is located in a great place; Steadily increasing amount of upgrades; Not very impressive general magazine capacity.
Cons: Off balance because of the skeleton stock, and the battery in the front, Generally not as durable as an AR or an AK

I agree with all your points except for the first "con" for the G36-type. I think the upgrade market has really embraced the G36.

Last I checked, I had not seen many upgrades for them. I would find it hard to believe that they would have as many as an AR or an AK, but I will change it to a steadily increasing amount of upgrades.

How is the charging handle in a bad place on a M16/M4? I personally love it there mainly since it's out of the way. I've also never found a G36 to be off balanced either.

One advantage of the AR is that 2 of its mags can fit in a pouch that will only fit one of the other two styles of mags. Also, AR midcaps are generally 130 rds compared to 100 for AK or G36. However, AKs have the largest hicap mag capacity.

to iliveforthis: The M4's charging handle is right behind the shooter's head, and you have to move your head to use it. The G36 is up more forward, and you can keep your head down on the gun for that. If I can get more people to say that the G36 is not off balance, I will correct myself.

I still fail to see a con there. The charging handle severs no purpose really other then exposing the hop-up on an AEG and racking the first BB into the chamber on a GBB but after that that's where the bolt catch comes in.

I was thinking real guns and airsoft guns when i wrote this.

SnoSnipe wrote:

to iliveforthis: The M4's charging handle is right behind the shooter's head, and you have to move your head to use it. The G36 is up more forward, and you can keep your head down on the gun for that. If I can get more people to say that the G36 is not off balance, I will correct myself.

True that on the charging handle placement. Horrible...but the design of the gun doesnt allow for alternative placement anyway. Clearing jams and stovepipes in the heat of action or competition on a real steel M4/16 or any AR style rifle is a pain the the butt. I do have to say that I haven't noticed a balance issue on the G36, but I may be wrong.

SnoSnipe wrote:

I was thinking real guns and airsoft guns when i wrote this.

Ah ok, i thought it was just airsoft guns. Then yes on the real M16/M4 the charging handle has some design flaws. So does the AK for that matter since it's on the right side and lacks a bolt catch entirely if i remember right.

Yeah. I think you're right about that.

iliveforthis99 wrote:

SnoSnipe wrote:

I was thinking real guns and airsoft guns when i wrote this.

Ah ok, i thought it was just airsoft guns. Then yes on the real M16/M4 the charging handle has some design flaws. So does the AK for that matter since it's on the right side and lacks a bolt catch entirely if i remember right.

Well you are right...mostly.
AK's do not have a bolt catch, HOWEVER, magazines with a "bolt catch feature" are available...in some cases, even becoming standard issue for the world's AK using militaries.

I believe they work by using a spring loaded mechanism following the last round's extraction to hit a notch in the AK's action...locking the bolt open.

Another con for the AK line is the 74 series doesn't use NATO standard rounds nor does it use STANAG mags. Plus i've always found the long mag of the AK to more of a bother, can't argue with the round though. The G36 also doesn't use STANAG mags which isn't that big of a deal since it's still a 5.56


Interesting, i didn't know they made mags like that for the AK.

in my opinion if the charging handle is a bother to grab you can always pickup optics for example a holosight, so you can load a round into the chamber (real steel or GBB) without having to take your off of the tango

iliveforthis99 wrote:

Another con for the AK line is the 74 series doesn't use NATO standard rounds nor does it use STANAG mags. Plus i've always found the long mag of the AK to more of a bother, can't argue with the round though. The G36 also doesn't use STANAG mags which isn't that big of a deal since it's still a 5.56


Interesting, i didn't know they made mags like that for the AK.

There are AK variants made in Yugoslavia that chamber the NATO 7.62 × 51mm. At least, I'm 99% sure...





Also variants of Romanian RPK's chambering the 7.62x51mm.



Again, correct me if I'm wrong, I may have gotten bad info.

sniper_32 wrote:

in my opinion if the charging handle is a bother to grab you can always pickup optics for example a holosight, so you can load a round into the chamber (real steel or GBB) without having to take your off of the tango

Trying to even remotely look down your sight while racking the charging handle is hard as heck even with optics...try it

iliveforthis99 wrote:

Another con for the AK line is the 74 series doesn't use NATO standard rounds nor does it use STANAG mags. Plus i've always found the long mag of the AK to more of a bother, can't argue with the round though. The G36 also doesn't use STANAG mags which isn't that big of a deal since it's still a 5.56

I think it would actually be a pro for the USSR/Russia. They switched from 7.62 to the 5.45 because the 7.62 would just go right through flesh while the 5.45 would tumble inside the body causing much more internal damage. But I can see how not being STANAG would be a con for other units around the world.

Here's a BIG con for the G36 family: mags. Unless you have specially designed mag pouches, it is difficult to find mag pouches that will work for G36 mags. I have found that triple AK-style mag pouches work well enough, though.

Jarhead999 76 65 wrote:

Here's a BIG con for the G36 family: mags. Unless you have specially designed mag pouches, it is difficult to find mag pouches that will work for G36 mags. I have found that triple AK-style mag pouches work well enough, though.

Evike sells radio/utility pouches that they advertise as being able to hold G36/AK mags.

Jarhead999 76 65 wrote:

Here's a BIG con for the G36 family: mags. Unless you have specially designed mag pouches, it is difficult to find mag pouches that will work for G36 mags. I have found that triple AK-style mag pouches work well enough, though.

Yes this is in fact the biggest con.

Now pros of a G36 over a AR and AK.
Much-Much-Much easier to disassemble and upgrade.
Very lightweight and ergonomic.

@LW
+1 on disassembly

@br33ftw
Are they available on ASGI?

Spl. Durkee wrote:

iliveforthis99 wrote:

Another con for the AK line is the 74 series doesn't use NATO standard rounds nor does it use STANAG mags. Plus i've always found the long mag of the AK to more of a bother, can't argue with the round though. The G36 also doesn't use STANAG mags which isn't that big of a deal since it's still a 5.56


Interesting, i didn't know they made mags like that for the AK.

There are AK variants made in Yugoslavia that chamber the NATO 7.62 × 51mm. At least, I'm 99% sure...


Also variants of Romanian RPK's chambering the 7.62x51mm.

Again, correct me if I'm wrong, I may have gotten bad info.

Not to surprising considering the history of the AK. Military wise though the only rounds i know for sure that the AK family use is the 7.62x39, 5.56x45, and 5.45x39. I just remembered though that i recently held a civi AK variant chambered in 7.62x51.

ROTCkid wrote:

iliveforthis99 wrote:

Another con for the AK line is the 74 series doesn't use NATO standard rounds nor does it use STANAG mags. Plus i've always found the long mag of the AK to more of a bother, can't argue with the round though. The G36 also doesn't use STANAG mags which isn't that big of a deal since it's still a 5.56

I think it would actually be a pro for the USSR/Russia. They switched from 7.62 to the 5.45 because the 7.62 would just go right through flesh while the 5.45 would tumble inside the body causing much more internal damage. But I can see how not being STANAG would be a con for other units around the world.

It can go both ways. Against soft targets (ie unarmored) the 7.62x39 has plenty of power to cut clean through. This can cause problems like what we encountered in Somalia with our troops being given AP rounds which went right through their targets allowing guys to literally take several rounds before dropping. Add the fact the guys were amped up on kaht the small stopping power really hurt us. On the flip side though fighting someone wearing body armor that 7.62x39 is very nice which our troops now have found out.

iliveforthis99 wrote:

Another con for the AK line is the 74 series doesn't use NATO standard rounds

Just so you know, the newest AK remodel, AK-101 uses 5.56 NATO rounds.

Yeah that's their export model of the AK-74 that they converted to use 5.56x45mm rounds. Same with the AK-102 but serving as a shortened carbine version. AK-103 and 104 are 7.62x39 versions of the AK-74. AK-105 is a carbine style 74 still chambered in 5.45x39. The 107 and 108 are totally new style AKs that use a different gas system from previous AK models. The 107 is 5.45x39 while the 108 is 5.56x45.