Kalishnikov !!

[billt460]

The AK platform is one of the most misunderstood platforms of military rifles. Most are inaccurately referred to as "Commie Junk" and other such nonsense.

And while there are some bad ones out there, the platform itself is of solid and proven design. I have several Polish and Yugo models, as well as a couple of Arsenal manufactured guns, that are beautifully crafted.

They are often criticized as being, "inaccurate" But as a combat rifle they are every bit as accurate as they need to be. And their ability to function in the harshest conditions has been proven across the globe, in all but countless conflicts and wars.

 

[WeyounDS9]

An AK is designed to be simple. They don't have anything they don't need. They are designed to run above all else. And they'll run long after AR platform rifles have stopped. This has been proven in most every conflict we have faced them in since Vietnam.

I had stoppages with AKs before.
I run my guns HARD and on various course I could not discern a difference between AK stoppage rates and ARs.
The AR being noticeably less reliable or even being unreliable at this point is a myth.

 

[CharlesInCharge]

The AK platform is excellent. It's akin to a reliable rugged old pickup truck. It does what it was made to do, and does it as well or better than any rifle ever designed. Some companies make better versions, some worse. Eh, such is life.

Right now, some of the better easily available versions around $700 to $1200 include the Serbian Zastava NPAPs and the Palmetto State GF3, GF4, and GF5 variants. None feel "cheap or crude," but instead are exceptionally well made weapons.

Word to the wise, get it, and plenty of ammo and mags now during a brief "lull" before the door closes ...

 

[Astro14]

My experience with ARs suggests that they're very reliable.

A couple thousand rounds through each of mine, in both 5.56 and .300 BLK, with ZERO stoppages or malfunctions. They just plain work.

A piston gun, like an AK, or a Garand, runs a cleaner action, but until you get over several hundred rounds without cleaning, it really doesn't make much difference in reliability. Easier to clean and lube the piston gun, but this isn't a reliability issue.

Nobody is shooting hundreds and hundreds of rounds in a self defense scenario. Even in a competition, a gun that is kept up with reasonable maintenance will be reliable for the length of the competition.

 

[CharlesInCharge]

I had stoppages with AKs before.
I run my guns HARD and on various course I could not discern a difference between AK stoppage rates and ARs.
The AR being noticeably less reliable or even being unreliable at this point is a myth.

Agree to disagree. As an expert with both weapons, and own piles of each, the reliability nod definitely goes to the AK in extreme conditions. Keep in mind the looser tolerances and reciprocating bolt charging handle definitely allow it to operate longer in harsher environments sans regular cleanings. And with steel cased ammunition.

This is NOT the case with the very finicky AR platform. That's a fact, proven by history. US GIs are constantly maintaining and cleaning ARs. If you want your AR (or M4) to run, it must be cleaned constantly. And it must be fed only soft brass case ammo. Steel will jam it up every time. It's a very laboriously near daily ritualistic chore. Do you think our sandal wearing adversaries in 3rd world harsh environments (damp jungles, dusty deserts, ocean pirates, filthy urban decayed cities, etc.) have similar obsessives compulsive cleaning rituals? I can tell you they do not.

 

[CharlesInCharge]

The entire debate really comes down to needs/wants. Both are excellent for the close home defense scenario, a few shots fired, and it's over. Both will do the job equally well.

If you want to look cool at the range with a modular AR15 with all sorts of stuff hanging off of it, and you're shooting somewhat minimally, with ample time to clean between outings, and your goal is putting dime sized holes in paper at 100 yards in perfect environments then the AR15 is a good choice. It's also a good choice if you like building guns, modularity, swapping uppers, stocks, etc. due to wide commonality of milspec parts. Great for mounting optics.

If you want the most rugged intermediate caliber weapon ever produced, capable of combat accuracy at distances, with an extremely simple operating system, capable of long term abuse and will continue to operate, then the AK is the better choice. Newer side and upper handguard mounting systems now allow better optics options for the AKs.

It used to be that the AK was 1/2 the price of an AR. So it was the obvious choice. Now, par has shifted to the AR being generally less expensive so an AR is a good choice.

Me, I have both, know both intimately, shoot expertly with both, and recognize their individual limitations. Both are excellent choices, depending on needs.

Hope to never be in a situation, individually or the nation, to need to rely on it once or daily... time will tell.

 

[Astro14]

If you want the most rugged intermediate caliber weapon ever produced, capable of combat accuracy at distances, with an extremely simple operating system, capable of long term abuse and will continue to operate, then the AK M-14 is the better choice.

There.

Fixed it for you...

 

[ArrestMeRedZ]

Somebody should tell the Taliban that AKs are better battle rifles. Ever notice that when Afghanistan fell, almost all the best dressed Taliban were sporting M-4s? Only the scrubs still carried AKs. Maybe after being on the receiving end for 20 years they realized the value of accuracy in a battle rifle. And the futility of "pray and spray"?

 

[billt460]

Agree to disagree. As an expert with both weapons, and own piles of each, the reliability nod definitely goes to the AK in extreme conditions. Keep in mind the looser tolerances and reciprocating bolt charging handle definitely allow it to operate longer in harsher environments sans regular cleanings. And with steel cased ammunition.

This is NOT the case with the very finicky AR platform. That's a fact, proven by history. US GIs are constantly maintaining and cleaning ARs. If you want your AR (or M4) to run, it must be cleaned constantly. And it must be fed only soft brass case ammo. Steel will jam it up every time. It's a very laboriously near daily ritualistic chore. Do you think our sandal wearing adversaries in 3rd world harsh environments (damp jungles, dusty deserts, ocean pirates, filthy urban decayed cities, etc.) have similar obsessives compulsive cleaning rituals? I can tell you they do not.

Agree 100%. And much like you, I own a boatload of each. Even the piston LWRC AR's I own will NOT run as reliably as any of my AK's. They will run cleaner and longer than most any direct impingement gas operated AR will.... But not as long as an AK.

Another thing is the AR platform likes to be run wet. The wetter the better. And depending on conditions, that's not always possible. We learned that the hard way in Iraq. The ultra fine, powdered sand over there, combined with CLP made lapping compound. It's a case of dammed if you do, and dammed if you don't.

When run dry they require constant cleaning. Run wet and they attract everything a rifle action needs to jam. I keep hearing how much more accurate the AR is compared to the AK. And they are right. AR's can be made to shoot extremely accurately.

But we're talking service rifles, not match rifles. The AR is a much more accurate platform, no doubt about it. But accuracy goes hand in hand with close tolerances. Close tolerances leave less room for crap.

AK's are generously toleranced for a reason... To keep them running. As you mentioned, you don't see our enemies running around the jungle with cleaning kits for their AK's. Or with bottles of CLP strapped to the sides of their helmets.

But Astro is right for us civilians. We're never going to face smoking, overheated weapons in a urban self defense situation. With that said, if I were to be left in an unfriendly place, and could only have one rifle and pistol. I would choose an AK-47 and a Glock. If I then died, it wouldn't be because of poor weaponry.

 

[CharlesInCharge]

There.

Fixed it for you...

You won't get argument from me on the M14 being among the best, but it's not an intermediate caliber rifle. Otherwise I'm a big fan of it, and think it was a mistake historically to take away the M14 to give GIs in Vietnam an unproven M16 platform, with design flaws (unlined barrels, no forward assist, 20 round mags, no cleaning kits and disinformation about not needing to be cleaned) and wrong/bad ammunition propellants, and more problems... It cost a lot of American lives.

But even more recently with all the improvements, the M4 let down a lot of GIs in OEF and OIF. Notably several M4s failed during the 2008 battle of Wanat.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/back-2008-us-armys-m4-rifle-failed-badly-tough-shootout-44867

In the Army’s report on Wanat, one soldier described alternating between three M-4s, using each until it jammed.

“My weapon was overheating,” another soldier said. “I had shot about 12 magazines by this point already and it had only been about half an hour or so into the fight.” In other words, the soldier fired approximately 360 rounds in 30 minutes. That’s 14 rounds a minute—one every four seconds."
----

As it relates to the AK vs. AR debate, the nod for modularity and ergos goes to the AR. But to understand the reliability it is the piston system which allows the chamber (the key area) to remain ultra clean of fouling and cool. The design of the AR/M16/M4 is typically direct gas impingement which operates the bolt by forcing dirty gases into the chamber. Over time, excessive use, and especially high rates of fire, that area quickly gets extremely hot and dirty with baked on carbon. That combined with tight tolerances and a complex star chamber often shuts the platform down... and very hard to get running again in an emergency.

 

[CharlesInCharge]

Somebody should tell the Taliban that AKs are better battle rifles. Ever notice that when Afghanistan fell, almost all the best dressed Taliban were sporting M-4s? Only the scrubs still carried AKs. Maybe after being on the receiving end for 20 years they realized the value of accuracy in a battle rifle. And the futility of "pray and spray"?

That's making a lot of speculative assumptions.
1. Free is free.
2. Your speculation means the picked ARs instead of, rather than in addition to, or when they might have nothing else, or when their AKs are 50 years old and past repair.
3. Ammunition and magazines are also a consideration. AKs without ammo are less valuable than ARs with ammo and mags.

Helps to think of the entire ecosystem of supply chains.

 

[billt460]

Another thing to consider is the fact most ALL of our special forces teams, (be they SEALS, Delta, or any of the others), do not carry GI issue M-4's. Most all of them carry H&K 416's. Which are a much more dependable, piston operated variant of the original Stoner M-16, Direct Impingement design.

In fact if I remember correctly, there wasn't a single issue M-4 that was in Bin Laden's house that night.

 

[billt460]

That's making a lot of speculative assumptions.
1. Free is free.
2. Your speculation means the picked ARs instead of, rather than in addition to, or when they might have nothing else, or when their AKs are 50 years old and past repair.
3. Ammunition and magazines are also a consideration. AKs without ammo are less valuable than ARs with ammo and mags.

Helps to think of the entire ecosystem of supply chains.

And don't forget, the Mujahidin sent the Soviets packing in Afghanistan on horseback. With their crudely built Khyber Pass, cave made AK's. That's a fairly long train ride back to Moscow.

 

[CharlesInCharge]

Another thing to consider is the fact most ALL of our special forces teams, (be they SEALS, Delta, or any of the others), do not carry GI issue M-4's. Most all of them carry H&K 416's. Which are a much more dependable, piston operated variant of the original Stoner M-16, Direct Impingement design.

In fact if I remember correctly, there wasn't a single issue M-4 that was in Bin Laden's house that night.

I believe you are correct...

 

[Astro14]

The M-14 vs. M-16 debate has been the subject of entire books.

Simply put, for a given weight of weapon + magazines, the M-16 gets more than double the number of rounds down range. Closer to triple the number, I think.

For the Army, in the 1960s, this was considered an advantage.

The real problem with the M-16, made worse by the M-4, isn’t reliability, it’s the performance of the ammo. A 55g 5.56mm (M193) has lousy impact energy at range, and gives up a lot of performance with a barrier. The 62g M855, with its steel core improves barrier performance, but still has poor energy at range.

Plenty of stories of Taliban taking 3 or 4 hits with an M4, and staying in the fight. That is poor terminal performance.

What good is tripling the number of rounds a soldier can carry, if he needs five times as many hits to take out the enemy?

Many SEALs, early on in Afghanistan, chose the M-14 for just this reason.

One of the AK advantages is the nature of the 7.62x39 round. Tapered case, heavier projectile, more powder adds up to better reliability (case design) and performance (impact energy and retained energy through a barrier) than the 5.56.

I’ve got no experience with the 5.45x39, but suspect the Russian Army was looking at rounds per soldier, not terminal performance, when they chose that over the 7.62x39.

 

[billt460]

One of the AK advantages is the nature of the 7.62x39 round. Tapered case, heavier projectile, more powder adds up to better reliability (case design) and performance (impact energy and refined energy through a barrier) than the 5.56.

I’ve got no experience with the 5.45x39, but suspect the Russian Army was looking at rounds per soldier, not terminal performance, when they chose that over the 7.62x39.

Kalashnikov was always against the AK using the 5.45 X 39 round. He was overruled by Soviet higher ups, who wanted the new round to "compete" with the M-16 round.

 

[CharlesInCharge]

The M-14 vs. M-16 debate has been the subject of entire books.

Simply put, for a given weight of weapon + magazines, the M-16 gets more than double the number of rounds down range. Closer to triple the number, I think.

For the Army, in the 1960s, this was considered an advantage.

The real problem with the M-16, made worse by the M-4, isn’t reliability, it’s the performance of the ammo. A 55g 5.56mm (M193) has lousy impact energy at range, and gives up a lot of performance with a barrier. The 62g M855, with its steel core improves barrier performance, but still has poor energy at range.

Plenty of stories of Taliban taking 3 or 4 hits with an M4, and staying in the fight. That is poor terminal performance.

What good is tripling the number of rounds a soldier can carry, if he needs five times as many hits to take out the enemy?

Many SEALs, early on in Afghanistan, chose the M-14 for just this reason.

One of the AK advantages is the nature of the 7.62x39 round. Tapered case, heavier projectile, more powder adds up to better reliability (case design) and performance (impact energy and refined energy through a barrier) than the 5.56.

I’ve got no experience with the 5.45x39, but suspect the Russian Army was looking at rounds per soldier, not terminal performance, when they chose that over the 7.62x39.

The M14 was sought out in OEF for 3 reasons. Range (huge ranges over valleys between mountains), ballistic performance, and reliability.

Agree the 7.62x39 can perform better, but both are very lethal. Stories of enemies taking multiple hits may be exaggerated, or maybe due to kat or other drugs our enemies take either habitually or before engaging in fighting. Kat and similar euphoric drugs are very common highly addictive stimulants in 3rd world nations.

The AK74 round, 5.45x39, is not only lighter, smaller, and cheaper, but as I understand it it features a steel armor penetrator with a hollow section for and/or aft, which provides both penetration and collapsing/tumbling for devastating wounds. It's a really smart design, and nicknamed the "poison pill."

This allows troops to carry more ammo for the same weight, and it's extremely effective on armored and unarmored opponents.

 

[billt460]

Best of both worlds. M-4 compactness. 7.62 X 51 MM power and range. 20 round capacity.

 

[Astro14]

Best of both worlds. M-4 compactness. 7.62 X 51 MM power and range. 20 round capacity.

With an optic and a bigger magazine, it would be perfect!

 

[CharlesInCharge]

.308 loses a lot of gusto from 16" and would benefit from 18" for performance, range, and noise perspectives.

I prefer the Scout variant myself. That, and my FALs in 18" barrels, and I'm set for TEOTW or at least I'll make a impression at the coming breadlines.