Falling In Love with the AK, Losing that Loving Feeling for

[JoshNC]

I think the trick to buying good guns cheap is recognizing when you see a market anomaly. The inexpensive bolt action rifles from the former eastern block countries during the '90's and early 2000's was a market anomaly. They were selling the rifles at prices far below what it would cost them to produce today and far below what it cost to produce them back in the day in real dollars. The availability of inexpensive AK's during the late '80's, '90's and 2000's was again a market anomaly. In their desperation for cash, the former communist countries were producing at very low prices because their tooling was already paid for. There's no way they would have been able to sell at such low prices if they had to create all the tooling. Now, AR15's are in a market anomaly. We're able to buy them so cheap simply because an increase in demand resulted in there being a large number of producers manufacturing more than they have previously. Since more (relative to other firearms) are being produced, the business overheads on a per unit basis are low. Couple that with the brutal competition that results from decreasing demand and you get very low prices. If supply and demand remain the same, some of these AR15 manufacturers won't make it. Now's the time to buy good AR15's cheap.

BTW, if you want a good AK cheap, then you can get a Serbian N PAP for right at $500.

Very sound assessment. I still kick myself for not buying Bulgy AKs when they were around $200 in the late 90s.

NO KIDDING.

$400 HK P7s, I'll take 6 please. $300 SIG P6s? I'll take 4 please. DOC HK94s, 90s import Maadi's and Romanian SARs. Too many others to name.

Ugh you had to bring up Cali DOC HK94s. When they were released I could have purchased them for $1500 iirc from one of the distributors for the shop where I worked part time. I passed because I didn't have a HK sear at the time. So stupid.

[SPQR476]

The "AK Reliability" thing is actually kind of nuanced. More tolerant, to a degree, of contaminants and lack of maintenance? Yes, absolutely. More reliable in normal conditions with even a minimal lubrication schedule? No, actually significantly worse than a good (mil-spec, not 'great') DI AR, from a lot of rounds in mag testing, and that includes Russian built guns, bulgarian built guns, yugos, and rommys. That doesn't include customs from someone like Krebs or Fuller (didn't have the heart to destroy them in high volume testing), but does include proper, arsenal-built guns with both com bloc mags. That's one of the things we sought to address with the AK PMAG program was to get reliability numbers (MRBS) up to what a good AR with a GEN M3 PMAG will do.

The inaccuracy side of the AK equation is also quite false on good rifles. Yes, a rommy with a barrel that was banged out on a worn out mandrel and with cheap wolf poly can be a 5-6 MOA gun. But I've got a few 2 MOA 7.62 guns and of my two 74's, I have one 74 that is under 2 MOA and one that is really close to a 1 MOA rifle with VMAX. And don't forget that 4MOA is all that has been required of US small arms for long periods of our history.

Although the aftermarket has addressed optic mounting, selector ergos, to some extent the trigger (though great trigger pull and reliability/durability over the long haul are a hard combo to reconcile in the AK), etc., the weird bizarro-world (to me) inversion of pricing that was mentioned previously is kind of a buzz kill.

And a properly built AKM copy isn't too bad on the weight, at all. It's just that lots of folks seem to use a heavier barrel profile.

[Cold/Bore]

The "AK Reliability" thing is actually kind of nuanced. More tolerant, to a degree, of contaminants and lack of maintenance? Yes, absolutely. More reliable in normal conditions with even a minimal lubrication schedule? No, actually significantly worse than a good (mil-spec, not 'great') DI AR

I’d love to hear more. Could you define “significantly worse”? I have never heard any concrete data on AK reliability. We’re all familiar with the M-4/16 reliability tests done by the army and we’re all familiar with the MRBS figures for our own indigenous design, but I’ve never heard of actual figures that support the mythical AK reliability that has been past down primarily by oral tradition and expounded by internet hearsay.

[SteyrAUG]

Very sound assessment. I still kick myself for not buying Bulgy AKs when they were around $200 in the late 90s.



Ugh you had to bring up Cali DOC HK94s. When they were released I could have purchased them for $1500 iirc from one of the distributors for the shop where I worked part time. I passed because I didn't have a HK sear at the time. So stupid.

I was offered a large lot of them at distributor prices, I think it was $1,200 each but I also think that was for 50 guns. Damn near broke my brain trying to figure out a way to make that happen but I had to decline since I couldn't put the money together and I didn't know anyone with that kind of money that I trusted who I could make understand what a great deal it was.

If I held even 20 of them back I'd be sitting so pretty it isn't funny.

[jaholder]

I've got both a WASR as well as a Bulgy/Nodak 74, still buying mags and stacking ammo deep for both.

Still got all my Ar's and a boatload of lowers stashed in the safe.

[Kalash9305]

I’d love to hear more. Could you define “significantly worse”? I have never heard any concrete data on AK reliability. We’re all familiar with the M-4/16 reliability tests done by the army and we’re all familiar with the MRBS figures for our own indigenous design, but I’ve never heard of actual figures that support the mythical AK reliability that has been past down primarily by oral tradition and expounded by internet hearsay.

I've yet to have an AK misfire. Can't say that about my AR's and I have quite a few good ones (Colt, DD, BCM, Noveske). The AR's are fine tools, like scalpels, but if I want a go to gun that I know will go bang every time in a pinch it's the Russian AKS-74 I'm reaching for. It's not heavy (7 lbs), dead nuts accurate with iron sights at 100 yds and with 45 rounds of 7N6 in a real world scenario I doubt I'm needing a reload. If I do it probably won't matter. Anyhoo just my $.02.
Semper Fi.

[JoshNC]

There is a lot to love about the Simplicity of an AK including the cheaper ammo

Sent from my LGLS775 using Tapatalk

5 cents per round difference. $600-$1100 entry price plus mags, so let's say $750 - $1250 entry price. That makes the break even point 15,000 to 25,000 rounds.

[SPQR476]

I’d love to hear more. Could you define “significantly worse”? I have never heard any concrete data on AK reliability. We’re all familiar with the M-4/16 reliability tests done by the army and we’re all familiar with the MRBS figures for our own indigenous design, but I’ve never heard of actual figures that support the mythical AK reliability that has been past down primarily by oral tradition and expounded by internet hearsay.

I'll have to dig into the data for exact numbers. In the standard TOP 03-02-045 firing schedules, with lube added at the specified intervals, good ARs with Gen M3 PMAGS pretty much only stop with bad primers or the occasional broken bolt. AKs can be all over the place depending on how the tolerances stack up, and in general, the MRBS was lower. Kind of surprised us. But, if the good AK goes 2000 rds between stoppages and the good AR goes 5000...no one will likely notice unless that extra stoppage happens when you really don't want it to. Softer com bloc polymer body AK mags also HATE the Mil spec dust, especially with wolf poly and the like, but the operating system is more tolerant of it.

[Cold/Bore]

I'll have to dig into the data for exact numbers.

I’m sure you’re busy, but if you get around to it, I’m sure there are a lot of us that would love to be enlightened.

As I understand it, you’re saying that when compared to the best examples of AKs, the M4/16 running on Gen3 PMags is empirically more reliable when comparing MRBS numbers?

Obviously there are a lot of variables involved between different makes and models and compounded with the variable of different magazines, but I’m (pleasantly) surprised. Not that I’m skeptical. I just would have expected the data to confirm the M4/16 as “just as reliable,” but not more reliable, or even far more reliable!

BTW does anyone know if there has ever been any other studies done on AK reliability? I’ve always thought that some AKs should have been included in the Army’s “dust storm” tests from 2007. When the majority of your enemies use the AK, wouldn’t you want to have some data on how your primary weapon system stacks up against there’s?

[1168]

I am also on the edge of my seat, hoping for data.