ComBloc rifle type compared to AR type, pros and cons?

R

Robert Nicholson

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Location
Okanagan
This is a subject that I have become curious about, NOT in order to decide which is BETTER but what their relative
strong and weak points are. Neither do I want to debate about the cartridges they use even though those cartridges
may give each type part of their relative strength or weakness, for example: .223 is faster and has better BC allowing
this cartridge to be effective out further than the X39 cartridge, which in turn seems to have penetration advantages
at closer ranges. It is the whole rifle platform that I want to identify the relative strengths and weaknesses of.

So, if you shoot both a ComBloc 7.62X39 rifle and an AR .223 rifle, tell me how they compare to each other, pros and cons.

Thanks!:)
 
I have an AR and "several" SKS's. I also have a bolt gun for .223 and for x39

The inherent accuracy of .223 is overstated. Under ideal conditions at a range, with limited wind, sure, you can generally get better groups out of .223/5.56 at 100 and 200 yards, but after that both rounds really start to suffer, for different reasons. .223/5.56 because of how light the projectile is - it really starts to get pushed around by the wind as the velocity drops. x39 is a lot slower to start, so you're fighting bullet drop, and stability becomes an issue around the 300 yard mark. With a good bolt gun, x39 is plenty accurate to pick off gophers out to 150 meters or so - which is a pretty good level of practical accuracy.

Both are good for "minute of bad guy" out to 300 meters, but beyond that, you're going to start to have trouble.

Recoil is noticeably higher with x39. Neither really "kicks" per se, but you'll see significantly more muzzle flip with x39. If you want to crank off follow up shots super fast, it's just easier to do with .223/5.56.

For practical shooting, I wouldn't shoot anything bigger than a coyote with .223/5.56, and even there the round isn't a guaranteed game dropper. I've hit a coyote at a little over 100m with .223, good center mass "kill zone" shot, knocked it over only to see it roll, get back up, and run off (presumably to die in its den - the shot will be fatal, just not necessarily instantly so). I've shot a few coyotes with x39, and have yet to see one get back up. I've also gotten good "bang flop" response on deer with x39, whereas I wouldn't even try and take a deer with .223/5.56 (even if it was legal in AB to hunt deer with .223, which it isn't). There will probably be some guys who argues that .223 is fine for deer, and have done it quite successfully where it's legal (I think you're fine in Ontario), but I'm just a little dubious based on my own experience.

In the end...

Both cartridges are quite capable for their intended purposes. I (personally) would limit both to a max of 300yards effective range in practical shooting conditions. Sure, you can stretch both way past that at a range shooting gongs and paper at known distances under ideal conditions, but practically, 300 yards is probably tops,and 200 yards is more realistic.
 
It's just a matter of personal preference. They all shoot well, they're all durable, they all are useful hunting rifles.

The AR-15 has more natural ergonomics but if you train with a SKS or vz. 58 you will be more proficient with them than someone with an AR-15 who doesn't train.

There just isn't really a big difference other than recoil (and the difference is minor) and subjective preferences.
 
AR 15
PROs

-has more corrosive resistance
-generally lighter
-more ergonomic
-very accurate
-affordable in terms of what you get
-more diverse, precise and cheaper optic mounting solutions (if you have a flat top AR)
-quick operative features like easily accessible safety and bolt release etc.
-Very well sealed off action (proven by forgotten weapons mud tests)
-more aftermarket support
-less features protruding from the firearm like charging handles, mag releases etc.
-nice peep sight irons
CONs

- I guess DI is dirty,,, but i personally dont think its to bad when compared to combloc guns
- Tighter tolerances make foreign contaminates that do get in action more likely to cause jam
- Ive *HEARD* that DI can be unreliable in certain environments for whatever the reason... ( but obviously due to restrictions my AR has only seen perfect range conditions)
- less compact due to buffer tube
- more confusing to understand, service and use

COMBLOC
PROs

-looser tolerances so foreign contaminates that enters action is less likely to cause jam
-reciprocating charging handle allows user more control over manipulating the action directly.
-more compact because they have no buffer tube
-easier to understand, service and use
-often have more interesting history behind them
-generally more affordable overall, but you get less than an AR in my opinion so...
-proven to be overall more reliable in all environments

CONs

-More exposed action so foreign contaminates can get in easier (proven by forgotten weapons mud tests)
-Piston system are often fairly dirty
-leaf style irons SUCK my opinion
-relatively poor optic options
-more often heavier
-less operator friendly speed wise
-less after market support
-more susceptible to corrode due to steels used
-lots of parts protruding from firearm



This is all that I could think up for the time being , im sure there are many points i have messed... And im even more sure there will be people who disagree with what ive said lol but to me, this i my opinion and i stand by it! just buy ***BOTH***
 
Last edited:
Nice, Warren! ^^ This really brings it together for me, I will have to do some research on DI (direct impingement) systems but I can see
that the reasons I like ComBloc are valid pros and yet there are features to the AR platform that I want to experience.:wave:
 
warrenlikesboats said:
AR 15
PROs

-has more corrosive resistance
-generally lighter
-more ergonomic
-very accurate
-affordable in terms of what you get
-more diverse, precise and cheaper optic mounting solutions (if you have a flat top AR)
-quick operative features like easily accessible safety and bolt release etc.
-Very well sealed off action (proven by forgotten weapons mud tests)
-more aftermarket support
-less features protruding from the firearm like charging handles, mag releases etc.
-nice peep sight irons
CONs

- I guess DI is dirty,,, but i personally dont think its to bad when compared to combloc guns
- Tighter tolerances make foreign contaminates that do get in action more likely to cause jam
- Ive *HEARD* that DI can be unreliable in certain environments for whatever the reason... ( but obviously due to restrictions my AR has only seen perfect range conditions)
- less compact due to buffer tube
- more confusing to understand, service and use

COMBLOC
PROs

-looser tolerances so foreign contaminates that enters action is less likely to cause jam
-reciprocating charging handle allows user more control over manipulating the action directly.
-more compact because they have no buffer tube
-easier to understand, service and use
-often have more interesting history behind them
-generally more affordable overall, but you get less than an AR in my opinion so...
-proven to be overall more reliable in all environments

CONs

-More exposed action so foreign contaminates can get in easier (proven by forgotten weapons mud tests)
-Piston system are often fairly dirty
-leaf style irons SUCK my opinion
-relatively poor optic options
-more often heavier
-less operator friendly speed wise
-less after market support
-more susceptible to corrode due to steels used
-lots of parts protruding from firearm



This is all that I could think up for the time being , im sure there are many points i have messed...
Click to expand...

The overwhelming majority of your points don't actually apply in reality.

AR 15
PROs

-has more corrosive resistance SKS has a chrome lined bore and chamber, chromed gas piston, etc. vz. 58 has a chrome lined bore
-generally lighter Depends on the rifles being compared
-more ergonomic It's a matter of training. There are lots and lots of soldiers around the world who have used the comboc style for over 60 years
-very accurate Your standard entry level or mid-range AR-15 is only a 2 MOA gun, same as the vz. 58 and the SKS
-affordable in terms of what you get SKS is still $200 and 858s were $500 just a little way ago
-more diverse, precise and cheaper optic mounting solutions (if you have a flat top AR) vz.58 has an easily detachable side mount with a 1913 rail, made by the manufacturer
-quick operative features like easily accessible safety and bolt release etc. See above
-Very well sealed off action (proven by forgotten weapons mud tests) True, but this only applies when you're literally in a mud pit. In real life mud scenarios, The AK and vz. have performed quite well
-more aftermarket support Mostly true, but the SKS has a ton of junk for it, just like an AR-15
-less features protruding from the firearm like charging handles, mag releases etc. Subjective, doesn't really matter if you have an inch of charging handle
-nice peep sight irons I prefer the comboc style sights, subjective, again

CONs

- I guess DI is dirty,,, but i personally dont think its to bad when compared to combloc guns DI is not as dirty as people make it out
- Tighter tolerances make foreign contaminates that do get in action more likely to cause jam Well made ARs seldom have problems outside of sand storms...
- Ive *HEARD* that DI can be unreliable in certain environments for whatever the reason... ( but obviously due to restrictions my AR has only seen perfect range conditions) Problems in sub-zero temps but they make PISTON AR-15s
- less compact due to buffer tube 7-14.5" AR-15s are more compact than most combloc guns
- more confusing to understand, service and use Pretty damn easy to field strip and service

COMBLOC
PROs

-looser tolerances so foreign contaminates that enters action is less likely to cause jam Really only true for the AK and since the AR-15 is well sealed, they have very good durability
-reciprocating charging handle allows user more control over manipulating the action directly. Forward assist
-more compact because they have no buffer tube Not in Canada with 18.6"+ barrels
-easier to understand, service and use AR-15 is really, really simple. Pop two pins, no tools required
-often have more interesting history behind them Subjective
-generally more affordable overall, but you get less than an AR in my opinion so... Subjective
-proven to be overall more reliable in all environments Not in mud pits :p

CONs

-More exposed action so foreign contaminates can get in easier (proven by forgotten weapons mud tests) In the real world, doesn't really happen. AKs in Africa and the middle east still chugging along never being cleaned
-Piston system are often fairly dirty It's the cheap ammo that's dirty
-leaf style irons SUCK my opinion Subjective
-relatively poor optic options AK and vz. 58 have rails that snap right in, in literally seconds. SKS wasn't designed for optics
-more often heavier Depends on the rifle
-less operator friendly speed wise Training..
-less after market support Somewhat true but the aftermarket support for the SKS in Canada and the AK in the US is massive
-more susceptible to corrode due to steels used Not true
-lots of parts protruding from firearm Not true
 
m4EC6.jpg


I like charts :)

I don't have a SKS but I do have a 858, That being said I had to spend money to add features to the 858 that the AR comes with.

also X39 is cheaper to shoot than 5.56.
 
Postwar Combloc open sights are optimized for relatively close, fast, both eyes open shooting. They're not great when it comes to long range marksmanship but are much better in their element than the busy, field-of-view restricting irons found on most of their Western counterparts.
 
I think a lot of those remarks are subjective. My comments in RED

warrenlikesboats said:
AR 15
PROs

-has more corrosive resistance Based upon what? Most AK/SKS/Type 81 have chromed bores and chambers, and the parts of the gas system that see primer residue are chromed as well. There is more of the system coated with chrome in the average Combloc gun than the average AR15.
-generally lighter not true. An AR15A2 is 8.79 lb (3.99 kg) (loaded), a Type 81 is 3.4 kg (7.50 lb) (loaded) - more than a pound lighter.
-more ergonomic BS. Either firearm can be made more ergonomic by changing parts. The stock A2 grip is not so awesome.
-very accurate Is the issue M16 more accurate than an issue Type81? What is our personal experience of both guns? The type 81 was designed, in part, to be more accurate than an AK47. There are not enough in the wild in the west for you to make this claim IMHO.
-affordable in terms of what you get A budget AR and a Type 81 should cost about the same. If you are talking a military spec AR, it is prohibitively expensive compared to a mil spec Type 81.
-more diverse, precise and cheaper optic mounting solutions (if you have a flat top AR) Probably true, but the Type 81-1 variant has an integral optic mount that is pretty good.
600px-Operation_Flashpoint_Dragon_RisingType81s.jpg

-quick operative features like easily accessible safety and bolt release etc. Remember we are comparing the basic rifle, not one that has been all gucci'd out with magpul this and Noveske that. The Type 81 safety is in the exact same place as a stock AR15 safety and operates identically. The mag release is identical to an AK, if you like that, you will like the Type 81.
-Very well sealed off action (proven by forgotten weapons mud tests) Forgotten Weapons is not the gold standard. Aberdeen proving grounds is. In either event, I have not seen a Type 81 mud test, so this comparison is only one-sided, don;t you think?
-more aftermarket support True - if you like a heavy rifle full of tac gear.
-less features protruding from the firearm like charging handles, mag releases etc. I disagree. Go look at some pictures, I'd say the AR and Type 81 are not significantly different in this regard.
-nice peep sight irons The type 81 sights are more readily adjustable than the standard A2 sights, especially wearing gloves. I've not shot the Type 81 sights, for all we know they are great. Time will tell.
CONs

- I guess DI is dirty,,, but i personally dont think its to bad when compared to com bloc guns I think there is LOTs of proof to show DI guns are dirtier, in general than piston guns.
- Tighter tolerances make foreign contaminates that do get in action more likely to cause jam probably true.
- Ive *HEARD* that DI can be unreliable in certain environments for whatever the reason... ( but obviously due to restrictions my AR has only seen perfect range conditions) When the C7 is used in the high arctic, there is a heated cover used on the rifle for this reason. I don't know how a Type 81 performs in extreme cold yet.
- less compact due to buffer tube If we are comparing the M16A2 or M16A3 to the folding stock Type 81, then you are correct.
- more confusing to understand, service and use probably true.

COMBLOC
PROs

-looser tolerances so foreign contaminates that enters action is less likely to cause jam May not be true of the Type 81.
-reciprocating charging handle allows user more control over manipulating the action directly. true.
-more compact because they have no buffer tube depends on the model. Many variants have fixed stocks. personally I find the fixed stock more robust and better ergonomically than a folder.
-easier to understand, service and use likely.
-often have more interesting history behind them subjective. Lots of history behind the AR.
-generally more affordable overall, but you get less than an AR in my opinion so... Again ,the Type 81 will cost about the same as a budget US made AR.
-proven to be overall more reliable in all environments Not sure the type 81 has been evaluated fairly against the AR - do you have a specific military study you are referring to?

CONs

-More exposed action so foreign contaminates can get in easier (proven by forgotten weapons mud tests) This is misleading. FW has never tested the Type 81, they tested a pieced together Century Arms AK with a well used romanian AK parts kit slapped onto it.
-Piston system are often fairly dirty generally less dirty than the AR, but a lot depends on ammo quality. 7.62x39 is made by so many factories that "dirtiness" is all over the map.
-leaf style irons SUCK my opinion Many people prefer them.
-relatively poor optic options Type 81? Not sure. The importer may know more. There ARE optics on these guns in Chinese service.
-more often heavier See my last comment on this. Type 81 is over a pound lighter than an AR15A2.
-less operator friendly speed wise Based on what? Again, controls are VERY similar. Charging and mag release are different, but not markedly worse.
-less after market support for now. The Type 81 is not to market yet...
-more susceptible to corrode due to steels used Pardon? Everything relevant is chromed. The AR has steel parts too.
-lots of parts protruding from firearm Look at a photo of the Type 81. Not much different than the AR.



This is all that I could think up for the time being , im sure there are many points i have messed...
Click to expand...

Not trying to be a d!ck, but I think you compared the Type 56 to the AR there, not the Type 81 - the subject of this thread. Type 81 > Type 56. So sayeth the Chinese military, who had both and chose to drop the Type 56.
 
Claven2 said:
Not trying to be a d!ck, but I think you compared the Type 56 to the AR there, not the Type 81 - the subject of this thread. Type 81 > Type 56. So sayeth the Chinese military, who had both and chose to drop the Type 56.
Click to expand...

The subject of the thread was actually ComBloc rifles in 7.62x39 vs. the AR-15. No rifle in particular.

Your post, like mine, does highlight that there are no real truths to the pros or cons though. It's all subjective.
 
Claven2 said:
I think a lot of those remarks are subjective. My comments in RED



Not trying to be a d!ck, but I think you compared the Type 56 to the AR there, not the Type 81 - the subject of this thread. Type 81 > Type 56. So sayeth the Chinese military, who had both and chose to drop the Type 56.
Click to expand...

You are right that A LOT of it comes down to personal preference.... and no, I was just kind of doing a rough comparison between the AR's and a the whole spectrum of combloc weapons , its really a silly and difficult question to answer to be honest OP (its like asking how the Corvette compares to imports lol) ..... (plus Claven, do you actually have experience with the Type 81 ?? ) your talking like its the Holy grail of the combloc world ?! plus talking from direct and extensive experience with mounting optics to Combloc guns... YES I totally stand by my point. The POSP/side rail systems do have there merits, and yes they are decent considering the gun they are attached to; But NO, just NO WAY are they as accurate and robust as the conventional western civilization method of clamping a scope to a solid milled rail right into the receiver of the gun.

As for parts protruding from the combloc guns... lol try slinging an SKS with a POSP mounted, on your back for 3 hrs, or rest a VZ with an extended mag release up against the front seat of your truck, or having a combloc gun bouncing on your lap while snowmobiling across the rough prairie , notice the foam in a gun case wear the charging handle rests. YES they are a hell of a lot more pocky'er than a AR 15!
 
Thanks guys - lots of diverse opinions. I have to say that every time I read "foreign contaminates" Warren, I was instantly visualizing Wally (loved that cleaning bot on the fat facks survival yacht).

What about a shoot off? I don't have an AR and not going the restricted route for rifles - would not mind a couple of pistols though. My vz 58 rocks my sks, which may rock the 81 and might rock an AR. I don't know.

870P I never thought of both eyes open shooting with an sks or vz. I will try it though. Can you elaborate if you have time?

Rob, I don't think its a silly thread. Just difficult to answer and as such worthy of debate.

Drinking beer and posting stuff,
Cam
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom