This is exactly what I'm talking about. I've shot both (as a civilian and as military), and owned both. I traded my AR for an AK, although I went with the AK-76 instead of the 47, or even the 74. People get so hung up on this accuracy at distance crap when talking about assault rifles, they are forgetting what an assault rifle is built for.
The AK was built for spray and pray. That doesn't mean it's the best way to use the rifle, especially if you're not using it in the context of a conventional war.
And as far as assault rifles go, when all things are considered, the AK is a superior weapon.
In durability and ruggedness, yes, the AK is superior. It's also a lot easier to clean and maintain. It can be neglected. But it's inferior in every other way.
The only reason NATO doesn't use the AK series is because the 7.62x39mm is considered an inhumane round by NATO.
That's simply incorrect. In fact, 5.56 FMJ does more damage in tissue than 7.62x39 FMJ. Look at some wound profiles of the two rounds. The AK penetrates a lot further before yawing, so it tends to just poke clean holes in people like a handgun round. 5.56 yaws more quickly and then fragments, making a big mess:
7.62x39 FMJ wound profile:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound Profiles/AK-47 762x39mm.jpg
5.56x45 FMJ wound profile:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound Profiles/M855.jpg
Here's wound ballistics expert Martin Fackler on AK wounding effectiveness:
"Most full-metal-jacketed AK-47 bullets do not deform significantly on striking the body, unless they strike bone. They characteristically travel point-forward until they penetrate 9 to 10 inches of tissue (if a bullet yaws, turning sideways during its tissue path, it causes increased disruption). This means that most AK-47 shots will pass through the body causing no greater damage that produced by handgun bullets."
http://kalashnikov.guns.ru/wwwboard/board3/messages/1359.html
And quite honestly, when people start talking about "sniping" targets at 400 yards with an assault weapon, I ignore anything else that follows. If you want to engage targets at that distance, either you use a high powered rifle, and make your shots count, or all you are doing is giving away your position when you probably shouldn't be.
Targets can absolutely be hit at 400 yards with an accurate assault rifle, especially with optics. And if you're outnumbered, you had better keep your distance from your enemy whenever possible, picking him off from cover.
It would be nice to have one rifle for close quarters and one for 400+ yards, but it's best to carry one rifle that can do both. For an assault/battle rifle, that means something in 5.56, .308, or maybe one of the newer calibers like 6.5 Grendel if ammo availability isn't a problem. 7.62x39 is only good for close range because it has a crappy ballistic coefficient. It's not as versatile.
Almost ALL combat happens at ranges of less than 100 yards with small arms...
In the conventional combat of wars past, yes (of course it depends on the terrain, too). That doesn't mean the lone person or small group has to close with armed adversaries, especially if the latter are more numerous and/or have more firepower. In that case, you want to be out of the range of their weapons but still have them in range of yours. 5.56 easily outranges 7.62x39.
...which is why you want reliability, power, durability, and ease of use.
Reliability goes to the AK, but not by much. Durability goes to the AK. Power is comparable, but lethality goes to the AR if FMJ rounds are used, especially if body armor is in play. Ease of use definitely goes to the AR: it's lighter, more ergonomic, locks the bolt back on the last round of a mag, makes quick mag changes easier, is more controllable in rapid fire, etc.
You don't get to line up your shots with sandbags for support at "aim for the sweet spot" shots at close quarters like that.
No, but you'd better be able to penetrate their armor. 5.56 NATO penetrates body armor better than lead-core 7.62x39. There is currently lightweight polyethylene head, face, and torso armor (and maybe even leg armor) out there that can stop lead core 7.62x39 cold. 5.56 green tip punches through. Also, lead core 5.56 punches through hardened steel better than lead core 7.62x39.
Where 7.62x39 does better than 5.56 NATO is against automobile glass and many common building materials (like brick and wood). This is the trade-off. Personally, I think it's more important to be able to punch through armor than through glass, brick, and wood.
If you have access to REAL armor-piercing 7.62x39 (not just the mild steel core stuff), then I agree that you are better off with the AK for close-range fighting. And if you know where to buy such ammo (or bullets for handloading), please let me know!
If you don't have such AP ammo for the AK, then 5.56 NATO (M855 or XM855) is definitely better than 7.62x39 at close range.
And while the AR (M16, M4) series has made leaps and bounds in design improvements, when stacked up against the AK series, it is simply outmatched. People need to realize there are more factors when speaking to ASSAULT rifles than simply distance accuracy. And even then, it's not like an AK is that much less accurate than the AR series. I put an average of 50,000 rounds down range every year, and have already put about 20,000 through my new AK, and I can put a very nice group together at 250 yards with it. Of course, I didn't get the weapon for that kind of shooting either. With the exception of a rifle I just purchased, all my weapons are geared towards close engagement style shooting.
I'm lucky to have a great AK, too. I haven't fired it for groups, but it's perfectly reliable and seems very accurate. I love the thing.
Still, it's much heavier than an AR, and so is the 7.62x39 ammo and mags. I don't have AP ammo for it, so my AR penetrates body armor better. My AR has never malfunctioned in thousands of rounds, many of them rapid fire. And AR durability is often underestimated. Take a look at this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCBcV2Nb2Wo