• ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info

So the AK-47 is pre-historic and outdated for battle?

I didn't say the AR wasn't a proven design. All I said is it isn't in my opinion to me a first choice. And I don't even think its fair to compare an AK "47" to an AR since the calibers aren't even remotely alike. In a comparison verse the 74 and an AR15 Is more or less fair to compare the trajectory of the 5.45 is greater so these accuracy debates confuse me. My SLR104 shoots just as good as my AR...which is a Delton M4 contour non chrome lined 1-9 twist. I'm not talking hand loads. I'm talking out of the box surplus ammo through both guns. If you look at the action in any AK its virtually clean. Pull your sock off and wipe it. All your gas barely makes it through the gas tube. The AR after shooting several hundred rounds after you pop the upper off you can clearly see carbon,gas and debris. On the bcg on the bolt and the gas tube area. I'm not calling one better than the other. But they both have their disadvantages. My 5.45 is corrosive you aren't really going to find 5.56 that's corrosive. It bothers some people in a pick of a battle weapon

My response was to your statement "I have nothing against the AR to me its just not a suitable battle rifle", not to "I didn't say the AR wasn't a proven design".

I have carried both the M16A2 and M4 in harms way, and fired both until the front handguard was so hot it was hard to hold, carbon fouled yes, unreliable no. I have also done FID type training for troops equipped with Aks and seen multiple failures of the platform, some shooter induced, some not. With my limited experience with both, I have found both will work well if maintained and operated correctly and both will cease to function if not. The nonsensical "which is best" argument does nothing for me.
 
My response was to your statement "I have nothing against the AR to me its just not a suitable battle rifle", not to "I didn't say the AR wasn't a proven design".

I have carried both the M16A2 and M4 in harms way, and fired both until the front handguard was so hot it was hard to hold, carbon fouled yes, unreliable no. I have also done FID type training for troops equipped with Aks and seen multiple failures of the platform, some shooter induced, some not. With my limited experience with both, I have found both will work well if maintained and operated correctly and both will cease to function if not. The nonsensical "which is best" argument does nothing for me.

I carried an M16a2 very briefly and a M16a4 never had a problem with it. Spent most of my service in a trailer doing comm. Most I ever did with my m16 was crawl through sand and dirt with it. Never really got into any mud. She never skipped a beat. My claims are all based on observation. The AK does need maintenance to function I clean my AKs just as detailed as I clean my AR platform rifles. I've seen stamped receiver AK fail due to uneven rails, rust, and sediments in the receiver. The AR being a closed system you don't see a lot get in there. I'm not one to argue which is best all battle guns haves an Achilles heel good sir.
 
I carried an M16a2 very briefly and a M16a4 never had a problem with it. Spent most of my service in a trailer doing comm. Most I ever did with my m16 was crawl through sand and dirt with it. Never really got into any mud. She never skipped a beat. My claims are all based on observation. The AK does need maintenance to function I clean my AKs just as detailed as I clean my AR platform rifles. I've seen stamped receiver AK fail due to uneven rails, rust, and sediments in the receiver. The AR being a closed system you don't see a lot get in there. I'm not one to argue which is best all battle guns haves an Achilles heel good sir.

Good Enough :thumb:
 
I suppose you are right if you base your qualifications on a rifles ability to function when damp clay is poured directly into the action. Of course you don't want an AK either then since it choked as well. :boink:

But it didn't take 20 minutes, 3 tools and 2 people to get it operable. The AK never came out of battle at all. Sand poured directly into the receiver only rendered it into a single shot if you remember correctly. :) Still good enough for "battle" because it did operate. The AR on the other hand...................

Of course what you don't see is we were shooting at two litter coke bottles. The AR never missed, the AK never hit one.

That's due to the fact that I never aimed at a 2 litre bottle with an AK because they were only 25 yards out. I shoot my .380's at 25 yards.
 
Its total BS about the reason why the Soviets went to stamped receivers versus milled based on how they handle full auto. The sole reason was to make it cheaper, and also lighter. It eliminated a lot of steps and time of manufacturing. And saved some weight and a lot of money. Nothing about actual performance.
 
Its total BS about the reason why the Soviets went to stamped receivers versus milled based on how they handle full auto.
Source?
My source was a retired Soviet Army Colonel, Afghan war vet, teaching my NVP class (Soviet basic training for the High schoolers), as well as other Soviet/Russian active duty staff.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom