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

[Mr. Goodtimes]

The AK didn't run in the Inrange TV video because the bolt carrier couldn't close all the way, that's by design- to keep the weapon from firing out of battery. The AK if it does get some mud above the barrel area of the trunnion can easily be put back into service by wiping away that area so the bolt can close. They chose to ram the bolt forward several times impacting the mud making the situation worse before attempting to remove the debris. Nice thing about the AK, if it does get mud inside, pop the topcover, everything comes out- and just wipe it all away even with a gloved hand.

The AR on the other hand is a sealed design so the thicker mud purposely selected by the Inrange TV test video won't get inside. The AR however lacks room for debris around critical moving components. Worse, the AR has near zero room for even using your hands to clear away debris- so your down until you can get to your cleaning kit.

Here's an example of very mild over the beach test between an TAVOR/AR/AK demonstrating why the seventy year old AK is still a major contender;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2a9lZO74YCE


Here's an example of the AK's superior design qualities showcasing that it has plenty of room around critical moving components;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8hFZ7Jt2hQ



Thoughts, that's why someone needs to design a modern weapon that is both sealed against the elements like the AR yet has clearances around moving components to mitigate debris like the AK. Combining these attributes into one weapon system with modern ergonomics along with having a piston to survive an over the beach test- would create perhaps the perfect weapon system. I also will add that a static ejector, reciprocating charging handle and folding stock would be a nice addition. The SCAR is not that rifle. The MCX is not that rifle. The SIG 55X with some tweaks specifically stanag magazine compatibility and a quick change barrel system- could be.


7n6

I never thought in a million years I’d see an “American” defend such an undefendable outdated, pile of shit commie rifle meant to arm disposable peasant soldiers with such dedication.

I’ll be the first one to hand my coat on a superior design to the AR, but it hasn’t happened yet, and the AK is absolutely not it. Granted if I was arming my African child army, it would undoubtedly, indisputably be with AK variants... however, I undoubtedly, indisputably don’t care about African children.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[noonesshowmonkey]

Fly the rifle into space and jettison it into high orbit. If it can survive re-entry, it's a service grade rifle.

Drop the weapon into a crucible of hot steel. If it can survive those operating temperatures, it's a service grade rifle.

Provide the rifle to an actual monkey. If it can be discharged by the simian, it's a service grade rifle.

Load the rifle with only spitballs charged with poprocks. If it will still kill a man at 300m, it's a service grade rifle.

Disassemble the weapon and replace the furniture with bones and knapped flint. If it can survive a trans-continental hike, it might be a service grade weapon (but wait for the over-the-beach tests to be sure).

[jpmuscle]

Fly the rifle into space and jettison it into high orbit. If it can survive re-entry, it's a service grade rifle.

Drop the weapon into a crucible of hot steel. If it can survive those operating temperatures, it's a service grade rifle.

Provide the rifle to an actual monkey. If it can be discharged by the simian, it's a service grade rifle.

Load the rifle with only spitballs charged with poprocks. If it will still kill a man at 300m, it's a service grade rifle.

Disassemble the weapon and replace the furniture with bones and knapped flint. If it can survive a trans-continental hike, it might be a service grade weapon (but wait for the over-the-beach tests to be sure).

Essentially a service grade rifle, essentially.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mr. Goodtimes]

Fly the rifle into space and jettison it into high orbit. If it can survive re-entry, it's a service grade rifle.

Drop the weapon into a crucible of hot steel. If it can survive those operating temperatures, it's a service grade rifle.

Provide the rifle to an actual monkey. If it can be discharged by the simian, it's a service grade rifle.

Load the rifle with only spitballs charged with poprocks. If it will still kill a man at 300m, it's a service grade rifle.

Disassemble the weapon and replace the furniture with bones and knapped flint. If it can survive a trans-continental hike, it might be a service grade weapon (but wait for the over-the-beach tests to be sure).

Sounds like you’re searching for a rifle that essentially doesn’t exist.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bp7178]

Not saying you need a weapon to fire at underwater targets. However if you are firing after crossing a body of water or are firing from a partially submerged position- then a weapon should at the minimum pass a basic over the beach test. Notice in the Regular Guy "Swamp Test" video, the AR basically ceased to function altogether after only getting dunked in water while the AK got dunked multiple times, rolled in the sand, and it still ran fine.

This is what reliability looks like, an AK firing submerged and partially submerged.

That's what an asshole who produces click baits YouTube videos looks like, not reliability.

Bullets tend to have better ballistics when traveling through air, not water.

[sndt1319]

Isn’t the Galil an updated AK design? I thought the latest version addressed things like poor optics mounts and such.

[Waylander]

The CZ Bren 805 with the ACR stock is superior to the Scar 16 imo. Other than being lighter and having a better factory stock, the Bren 806 isn't a huge step forward. I prefer the reciprocating charging handle of the 805. The bolt release of the 806 being located directly in front of the trigger isn't good.

[RetroRevolver77]

That's what an asshole who produces click baits YouTube videos looks like, not reliability.

Bullets tend to have better ballistics when traveling through air, not water.

The real question is, why aren't we designing a rifle equally reliable and equally durable as some seventy year old WW II relic? Getting bogged down in the central Polesia swamps of Western Ukraine fighting Russians or fighting waves of Chinese on some frozen tundra for months on end- wouldn't be the best time to re-evaluate our weapon choices.

Isn’t the Galil an updated AK design? I thought the latest version addressed things like poor optics mounts and such.

The new Galil does address some of the ergonomic issues. Similarly the Russians whom were fielding AK-74M's and AK-103's will go to the AK-12 and AK-15. A little more ergonomic variant but still close to the original specs of the 100 series.

http://modernfirearms.net/en/assault...-12-ak-15-eng/


7n6

[MountainRaven]

The AR on the other hand is a sealed design so the thicker mud purposely selected by the Inrange TV test video won't get inside.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrV3Wq59mz0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Gmu0ffRb2M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFsx2XS2wA8

None of the guns used on the Ostfront were particularly reliable in mud, so I'd say you're grossly over-estimating the importance of functioning in mud.

[SteyrAUG]

I never thought in a million years I’d see an “American” defend such an undefendable outdated, pile of shit commie rifle meant to arm disposable peasant soldiers with such dedication.

I’ll be the first one to hand my coat on a superior design to the AR, but it hasn’t happened yet, and the AK is absolutely not it. Granted if I was arming my African child army, it would undoubtedly, indisputably be with AK variants... however, I undoubtedly, indisputably don’t care about African children.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe the SIG 550 series, maybe. They are both really close in terms of performance and reliability.

But for whatever reasons (economic, cultural, whatever) AKs seem to rule the global market, especially in the third world and middle eastern countries who previously relied upon the Soviets to supply them weapons.

But for whatever reasons (economic, cultural, whatever) ARs seem to rule the global market when it comes to developed western nations. HKs, FALs, FNCs and other offshoots notwithstanding.

You can make a high end AK work. I've seen a guy with a 100 series regularly school a group of dedicated AR enthusiasts. But it was the shooter, not the rifle. If he put in the same amount of time with an AR he'd have also schooled them just as easy.

You can also take an AR into environments where "vietnam stories" caution us that it will always fail...and it will work and keep working if it's maintained correctly.

Finally...can't believe we are still having this argument. Can we just finally kill it and put it to bed with ".45 vs. 9mm?"

Both rifles obviously work, the cemeteries are full of people who are testament to the lethality of both rifles. Each system has inherent advantages and disadvantages when compared to the other, the only real difference is understanding where each one outperforms the other and choosing accordingly.

Most limitations are actually with the shooter who complains about ergonomics, length of pull, optics platforms, stock triggers, magazine changes and things of that nature rather than just learning how to use the rifle in the first damn place. A FAL isn't an AR, but hand me a FAL and I can shoot the damn FAL at a respectable level and I'm not going to blame the rifle if my group is larger than 2MOA.