Military Weapons Trial, only the Kalashnikov AK 103 finishes the torture tests.

[Sooter76]

Look, dude.

The difficulty related to, and limitations on, mounting optics on an AK are reason alone to abandon the project in the modern era.

Against my better judgement I'm going to weigh in on this...

Between quality gas tube rails like the Ultimak and side mounting options that retain zero like those made by RS Regulate, the AK has plenty of options to effectively mount optics. Beyond those there are solid dustcover replacements with solid and dependable rails built into them as well as a myriad of other mounting options.

There are reasons to chose an AR over an AK, but the criticism of ergonomics and rail mounts is not a valid argument in the modern aftermarket era. You can make arguments for weight (valid), battlefield accuracy (less valid), and ammo availability (more personal preference than anything), but the criticism of the AK being an outdated platform reeks or fanboy-ism.

[Sooter76]

I think people need to take the AK for what it is, it was a rifle that was designed to used by poorly trained conscripts. They are very reliable especially when poorly taken care of and require little maintenance but other than that, the M16/M4 platform are far better rifles. We can observe proof of this worldwide. Obviously excluding the U.S., but the M4 is the weapon of choice of professional end users world wide. Whether it is the British SAS, Australian's/New Zealand, a host of European countries, etc.. the bulk of high quality Special Forces type units worldwide use M4s.


Another example is the Israelis. The Israelis built perhaps the best AK variant of them all, the Galil but once they received M16s in the 1970s (M16, M16A1, and Colt 653s), the Galil got relegated to reserve type units or more rear echelon units. That is not a ringing endorsement of the AK platform vs the AR platform.


Even with the OPs original post about Pakistan, Can we guess what Pakistani elite forces use? The M4. Which also seems to indicate that the M4 is the better of the two rifles because if it wasn't, Why would their best troops be armed with it?

The problem is you're ignoring the adversarial relationship the West and Russia have had for the last hundred years... As for why non-Western nations like Pakistan use the M4, consider that when they receive millions in financial aid every year from us, often designated for military use, it only makes sense that would choose to purchase the M4 or similar western designed weapons. It's often a stipulation of their aid package agreement.

I'm not saying the AK is better than the AR. In point of fact I think it's pretty much a wash so long as you're comparing quality made rifles.

[eodinert]

the criticism of the AK being an outdated platform reeks or fanboy-ism.

The criticism of the AK reeks of obsolescence.

It's a product of its time... the 1940s. Expectations have changed, and for the AK to meet those expectations, it has to be altered to the point that it's no longer an AK. Every single aspect of the rifle is out dated, and can be significantly improved upon...at that point, it's much better to start with a clean sheet of paper. The relationship of Russia to the west has nothing to do with the AK being obsolete.

I'm not saying it's not relevant, or prolific... I'm saying it's not the way forward. We have experienced peak AK. It's over. Even Russia doesn't want it any more, they just can't afford to replace it. It will be around in the third world, and in the hands of those who can't afford to replace it forever and ever.

[RetroRevolver77]

The real takeaway on this thread is that a SAN Swiss SG55X modernization to fall in line with M4-style ergonomics would be pretty tits.

Why ain't you guys starting a go-fund-me for that? The world (I!) needs it!

My post that outlines what I believe to be the overall perfect weapon is outlined at the top of page 3. In my personal estimation having studied nearly every design, a modernized SIG 55X would be the most reliable, durable, and an overall advanced weapon that could be created. Simply it is the only design to combine the piston fed design, reciprocating charging handle, static ejector, large massive locking lugs of the AK along with the bolt hold open, bolt release, and ergonomic controls of the AR all into one weapon. However it would need further refinement such as the addition of multiple gas settings specifically for adverse and suppressed use, a folding collapsing stock aka SIG 556 style, a quick change barrel for mission requirements, and finally a push button magazine release coupled with an adverse condition paddle style release for arctic field conditions, aka HK433 or G36 style.


7n6

[Five_Point_Five_Six]

TIt's a product of its time... the 1940s. Expectations have changed, and for the AK to meet those expectations, it has to be altered to the point that it's no longer an AK. Every single aspect of the rifle is out dated, and can be significantly improved upon...at that point, it's much better to start with a clean sheet of paper. The relationship of Russia to the west has nothing to do with the AK being obsolete.

The AR is a product of the 50's. So what. It was adapted, changed, and improved over the years. The whole "has to be altered to the point that it's no longer an AK" thing is ridiculous. Is the modern AR not an AR any longer because it's been altered so much since it's first design? If you want to compare a slicked up M4 to some wood furniture, iron sighted worn out AK that's been collecting dust in some balkan basement for 40 years, then yeah it's not even a close comparison. Outfit them with the same getup like a red dot, sling, and a light and the difference isn't that much.

I'm not saying it's not relevant, or prolific... I'm saying it's not the way forward. We have experienced peak AK. It's over. Even Russia doesn't want it any more, they just can't afford to replace it. It will be around in the third world, and in the hands of those who can't afford to replace it forever and ever.

Then you haven't been paying attention to much in the way of the AK world for the last few years.

[eodinert]

The AR is a product of the 50's. So what. It was adapted, changed, and improved over the years.

Because the design was forward leaning, not backward leaning. So much so, that it is the standard against which the AK is judged, and what it aspires to be (as you can see if you been paying attention to the AK world for the last few years). The AK is at was at the end of it's development cycle a while back. The AR is just getting to to the end of its evolution. What will de-throne the AR based design is caseless ammo, or laser blasters. What dethroned the AK was weight... and optics mounts... and magazines... and safeties... and sights ...

The whole "has to be altered to the point that it's no longer an AK" thing is ridiculous. Is the modern AR not an AR any longer because it's been altered so much since it's first design?

The architecture of the AR is unchanged. Handguards and stocks have evolved... optics mounting... because it could. It had a way to change that made improvement. Not just improvements in functionality, but weight...and it has, in more ways than anyone could imagine.

Yeah, you can make an AK do most of the things an AR will do...at 1/3rd more weight, with slower reloads. The question is, why would you want to?

[SteyrAUG]

The real takeaway on this thread is that a SAN Swiss SG55X modernization to fall in line with M4-style ergonomics would be pretty tits.

Why ain't you guys starting a go-fund-me for that? The world (I!) needs it!

Why would any want that?

It doesn't need a buffer tube so why add length when you can have a true side folding stock? What other egros would you need? You can reach the safety on a 550 as easy as you can an AR.

It already has a great low profile rail without adding the weight of a milled receiver. The sights are lower than an AR so most people love that.

About the only real difference I can see is mag changes, which aren't hard to do if you are used to them. Otherwise it terms of performance, reliability and handling the AR and 550 are probably as close to 50/50 as any two rifles can be that use completely different operating systems.

[RetroRevolver77]

Because the design was forward leaning, not backward leaning. So much so, that it is the standard against which the AK is judged, and what it aspires to be (as you can see if you been paying attention to the AK world for the last few years). The AK is at was at the end of it's development cycle a while back. The AR is just getting to to the end of its evolution. What will de-throne the AR based design is caseless ammo, or laser blasters. What dethroned the AK was weight... and optics mounts... and magazines... and safeties... and sights ...



The architecture of the AR is unchanged. Handguards and stocks have evolved... optics mounting... because it could. It had a way to change that made improvement. Not just improvements in functionality, but weight...and it has, in more ways than anyone could imagine.

Yeah, you can make an AK do most of the things an AR will do...at 1/3rd more weight, with slower reloads. The question is, why would you want to?

My 106UR weighs around 6 lbs, my 106CR weighs around 6.4 pounds and my 106FR weighs around 7 pounds. Now I have AUG's, AR's, I even had SIG's at one point but overall- the little 5.56 AK's are probably my favorites out of my collection.

Why would any want that?

It doesn't need a buffer tube so why add length when you can have a true side folding stock? What other egros would you need? You can reach the safety on a 550 as easy as you can an AR.

It already has a great low profile rail without adding the weight of a milled receiver. The sights are lower than an AR so most people love that.

About the only real difference I can see is mag changes, which aren't hard to do if you are used to them. Otherwise it terms of performance, reliability and handling the AR and 550 are probably as close to 50/50 as any two rifles can be that use completely different operating systems.

SIG already makes a folding collapsing stock so not sure what you are referencing.

[jesuvuah]

Why would any want that?

It doesn't need a buffer tube so why add length when you can have a true side folding stock? What other egros would you need? You can reach the safety on a 550 as easy as you can an AR.

It already has a great low profile rail without adding the weight of a milled receiver. The sights are lower than an AR so most people love that.

About the only real difference I can see is mag changes, which aren't hard to do if you are used to them. Otherwise it terms of performance, reliability and handling the AR and 550 are probably as close to 50/50 as any two rifles can be that use completely different operating systems.

I agree with all of that, but the AR owns it when it comes to modularity. With a properly setup lower, you can go from sbr, to carbine, to spr with 2 pins. I think that is appealing to both militaries and civilians.

Sent from my SM-S327VL using Tapatalk

[Arik]

Because the design was forward leaning, not backward leaning. So much so, that it is the standard against which the AK is judged, and what it aspires to be (as you can see if you been paying attention to the AK world for the last few years). The AK is at was at the end of it's development cycle a while back. The AR is just getting to to the end of its evolution. What will de-throne the AR based design is caseless ammo, or laser blasters. What dethroned the AK was weight... and optics mounts... and magazines... and safeties... and sights ...



The architecture of the AR is unchanged. Handguards and stocks have evolved... optics mounting... because it could. It had a way to change that made improvement. Not just improvements in functionality, but weight...and it has, in more ways than anyone could imagine.

Yeah, you can make an AK do most of the things an AR will do...at 1/3rd more weight, with slower reloads. The question is, why would you want to?

Colt 6920 weighs 6.95lbs.
AKMS weighs 7.5lbs.
Milled AK weighs 10.5lbs

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk