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

[RetroRevolver77]

It's difficult to imagine that HK could have a submitted a competitive entry to Pakistan. They probably got 4 AKs for the price of one HK.

In the end, the AK's outperformed everything else in terms of reliability and the cost was the cheapest- so they chose it. Figure it's a virtually indestructible rifle that works well and will last a long time. The Russians even offer some upgrade packages now for older rifles featuring folding collapsible stocks, integrated rail systems, and a Kreb's style safety.

[crusader377]

Well the fact is we can't ignore these tests. It's not an option to allow the Europeans, especially Russians- to have more reliable weaponry. We've fought a couple wars there already, large scale wars in extremely bad conditions. I think we should pursue building a modernized reliable rifle. Maybe not for everyone in the military but at least for the infantry. Seems the USMC is trying to accomplish this already but not sure of just going to the 416 types are enough, might need something more advanced.

7n6

We have a modernized reliable rifle, it is called the M4. For all the proponents of the AK, it is very interesting that even with militaries that operate both the AK platform and the AR platform, the elite troops or troops that have a higher likelihood of seeing combat are using the M4/M16 platform while the AK is relegated to less important units. For example, Israel built perhaps the best AK variant, the Galil but once the Israelis received the M16 after 1973, the Galil was quickly dumped as a front line weapon and re-issued to combat support troops while the M16 was issued to Infantry, Paratroopers, SF, etc..,you know the guys who are expected to shoot people with their rifles. The Israelis are pretty pragmatic and this is very good evidence supporting my argument that the M16/M4 platform is a superior rifle over the AK.


Poland is another example, their regular Army uses a modernized AK while their Special Forces are using the M4. You can find multiple examples of this worldwide and in every occasion that a military is using both the AK and AR platform, the AR is always the rifle issued to the better troops of the respective countries military. It is never the reverse in which AKs are issued to the best troops while ARs are issued to troops of lower readiness. I think that is pretty good evidence that the M16/M4 is the better of the two rifles.

[Sooter76]

But as I stated before, I was a huge ak koolaid drinker for years, but eventually, I was willing to give up a little in the reliability department for better ergos, modularity, accuracy, weight....not to mention, in the US, the AR is the easy button, and very affordable.

That's an interesting comment...

Out of the box you can't argue with the AR-15's better ergonomics it's really kind of a moot point as almost everyone, whether they're AK driven (unless they're a traditionalist that just has to have wood furniture) or AR-15 driven, swaps all that shit out anyway. As a former AK owner I'm sure you know this, but the first thing almost every AK owner does is change their pistol grip and swap safety out for a Krebs safety. Once you do that the ergonomics are about equal unless you happen to dislike the stock in which case that's easily changed these days too.

In terms of weight, out of the box the AK is 6.8lbs without a magazine. The military M4 is 6.4lbs, again without a magazine. So about on par, especially when you consider that an equivalent civilian AR-15 with a the longer barrel will add some weight, and if you're talking about gas piston platforms it pushes the weight up considerably, closer to 8.5lbs in some cases. Now when you start changing stocks and handguards, which feeds into modularity, you start adding or subtracting weight to both.

For modularity the aftermarket for the AK has really introduced some exciting products in the last few years. Disregarding the side rail that often gets derided but provides a solid and repeatable zero, the AK now has quality rail systems that give it the same level of modularity as the AR-15. Some of these newer handguards/rails are actually lighter than the OEM polymer handguards. So modularity is essentially on par now too.

Accuracy is really the only area where the AR-15 surpasses the AK, but there are caveats... First of all there's the ammo. 5.56 has a lot of good quality options available. AK ammo, whether you're talking 7.62x39 or 5.45 essentially limits you to surplus quality, and ammo quality matters when discussing accuracy. Secondly, everyone always compares AR-15 in 5.56 to the 7.62 AK47, completely ignoring that they have very different ballistics. I have a Russian SGL-21 that outshoots my BCM4 within 250-300 meters. Beyond that range and the ballistics of the 5.56 quickly outpace the 7.62 but you're sacrificing knockdown power for more distance. Which one is more important is a personal choice... Now admittedly my rifle may be an outlier but it's been my experience that within 300 meters the real world accuracy difference between the two platforms is negligible. Even more so if you're talking about 5.45 or 5.56 variants that can keep pace with the AR-15 at much longer ranges. It really comes down to this... I don't care if you can outshoot me on a bench all day long, what matters is I can keep pace on a fast dynamic range.

My point isn't that the AK is a better rifle, I don't believe it is. But having been on both ends of an AK, seeing the options the market has come up with over the past few years for the rifle, and working with both platforms on a fairly regular basis, in terms of a fighting rifle there really isn't much to make one the clear choice over the other anymore.

Lastly, you're final line may be the most important... The AR is the easy button, and it is very affordable. Let's be honest, a sub-$1,000 AR is going to be more accurate and more reliable long term than a sub-$1,000 (which are almost exclusively American made) AK. Looking at the track records, that's indisputable. The only possible exception is the WASR and while their QC has gotten much better their track record and accuracy isn't the best. Besides, Century is quickly pushing them to be $1,000 rifles too cuz they can't have an import selling better than their crappy RAS-47 and C-39's. But a quality Arsenal AK is going to match up against a higher end AR pretty well.

[RetroRevolver77]

We have a modernized reliable rifle, it is called the M4. For all the proponents of the AK, it is very interesting that even with militaries that operate both the AK platform and the AR platform, the elite troops or troops that have a higher likelihood of seeing combat are using the M4/M16 platform while the AK is relegated to less important units. For example, Israel built perhaps the best AK variant, the Galil but once the Israelis received the M16 after 1973, the Galil was quickly dumped as a front line weapon and re-issued to combat support troops while the M16 was issued to Infantry, Paratroopers, SF, etc..,you know the guys who are expected to shoot people with their rifles. The Israelis are pretty pragmatic and this is very good evidence supporting my argument that the M16/M4 platform is a superior rifle over the AK.


Poland is another example, their regular Army uses a modernized AK while their Special Forces are using the M4. You can find multiple examples of this worldwide and in every occasion that a military is using both the AK and AR platform, the AR is always the rifle issued to the better troops of the respective countries military. It is never the reverse in which AKs are issued to the best troops while ARs are issued to troops of lower readiness. I think that is pretty good evidence that the M16/M4 is the better of the two rifles.

The M4 was an advanced weapon that was highly adaptable unlike many others- so that's why our military partners used the rifle frequently within their SF units. However most of those militaries today are now adopting their own unique designed rifles or the default HK 416 or SCAR. I mean you could go through the list but anyone that is updating their mainline infantry rifles are likely switching out their aging SF use M4's as well. Look at what's in development or available now, you have the Tavor X95, Bren, MSBS, HK 416, SCAR, AK12/15, ARX 160, AUG M1, B&T 556 etc. All of which are customizeable, ergonomic, and suppressor ready. However the main point is that all of these modernized weapons are piston rifles which means they will pass a simple over the beach test, extreme cold weather tests without preparation, and some might even pass portions of the more extreme environmental tests- though so far the AK seems to retain it's crown in that regard. Simply everyone is quickly advancing their infantry weapons. Given past large scale conflicts throughout Europe- maybe it's time we consider doing the same.


7n6

[jpmuscle]

Well the fact is we can't ignore these tests. It's not an option to allow the Europeans, especially Russians- to have more reliable weaponry. We've fought a couple wars there already, large scale wars in extremely bad conditions. I think we should pursue building a modernized reliable rifle. Maybe not for everyone in the military but at least for the infantry. Seems the USMC is trying to accomplish this already but not sure of just going to the 416 types are enough, might need something more advanced.






From what I understand, some companies submitted their internal testing results and data direct. Others participated in the actual military testing trials. I do not know which HK rifle they submitted.



7n6

So you’re saying the AK is more advanced than the 416? Wut


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Outlander Systems]

7n6,

How many issues did you have with your M4 during the GWOT?

[Sooter76]

So you’re saying the AK is more advanced than the 416? Wut


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He said more reliable, not more advanced...

[1168]

The Pakistan military, along with several youtube personalities, conducted very similar over the beach/swamp tests and the results are the same. Previous extreme cold weather tests shows issues with the design as well. Now a military trial tests mirror results of what backyard testers are finding. Simply these tests may have exposed flaws that need correction especially in light that our enemies weapons pass those very same tests.


7n6

You keep mentioning swamps and over the beach operations...are the Ranger Battalions, Marine Regiments, and SEAL teams carrying AK’s these days? Are you experienced in over the beach work and have you conducted foot patrols in swamps?

I’m sure no one is using M4’s these days in wet or sandy environments. Crap, I know my M4A1 never worked after I went swimming or a helo landing caused a brownout. Dang thing snapped in half on hard landings, too.

[docsherm]

The M4 was an advanced weapon that was highly adaptable unlike many others- so that's why our military partners used the rifle frequently within their SF units. However most of those militaries today are now adopting their own unique designed rifles or the default HK 416 or SCAR. I mean you could go through the list but anyone that is updating their mainline infantry rifles are likely switching out their aging SF use M4's as well. Look at what's in development or available now, you have the Tavor X95, Bren, MSBS, HK 416, SCAR, AK12/15, ARX 160, AUG M1, B&T 556 etc. All of which are customizeable, ergonomic, and suppressor ready. However the main point is that all of these modernized weapons are piston rifles which means they will pass a simple over the beach test, extreme cold weather tests without preparation, and some might even pass portions of the more extreme environmental tests- though so far the AK seems to retain it's crown in that regard. Simply everyone is quickly advancing their infantry weapons. Given past large scale conflicts throughout Europe- maybe it's time we consider doing the same.


7n6

Funny story.........All of the other nations that I have worked with, and that list is considerably long, that use all of the weapons that you listed mostly like them. Those that have SOF usually have a bit more latitude when it comes to weapons selections...... If they can they get a variant of the M4.....

Why would they do that if these newfangled weapons are so much better? Because the M4 works and has been working for a VERY long time. Have you used any of those weapons in actual combat?


Here is the finally on this conversation:

The AK is a Piece of SHIT. Period. No more arguments about it. It was created to be made by idiots, used by idiots, and maintained by idiots. That is what 99% of the Soviets Army was, conscripts that had no clue. And guess what? They exported it to all of their followers around the world that were also..... wait for it...... IDIOTS.

That being said.... If you want one to play with, great. Toys are awesome to have. As a true fighting weapon? Rethink some life choices and get quality over simplicity.

[Sooter76]

Here is the finally on this conversation:

The AK is a Piece of SHIT. Period. No more arguments about it. It was created to be made by idiots, used by idiots, and maintained by idiots. That is what 99% of the Soviets Army was, conscripts that had no clue. And guess what? They exported it to all of their followers around the world that were also..... wait for it...... IDIOTS.

That being said.... If you want one to play with, great. Toys are awesome to have. As a true fighting weapon? Rethink some life choices and get quality over simplicity.

LOL... You sound like an old Vietnam Vet I used to know who had an irrational hatred of AK's because the enemy used them to shoot at him.