Mebbe time to say farewell to AK rifles..?

[RetroRevolver77]

Tell you what, if I ever find the tactical need to fire the damn thing underwater, I'll look into AK's again. One of my first no-ban Arsenal AK's had a canted front sight block. That was 2006 or 2007. I don't think it's too much to ask that after 10+ years K-VAR might just accidentally have their shit together. Guess not.

Like the people in the videos complained: When you spend a thousand dollars for a weapon you tend to expect more. Guess how many AR's I've owned that had canted sights? Zero, zip, nada.

Guess how many times I've needed to carry an AR in arctic conditions, fire underwater, or toss a bucket of sand into it? Zero, zip, nada.

The argument is a non-starter. AR's are just manufactured better and fulfill the need for reliability satisfactorily for 99.99% of the people that own them.

Here's a weapon as reliable as an AK: a Hammer. But I don't carry a hammer either.

99.99% of the people would admit that 87% of the time stats are simply made up to support their position. If what you stated was true then no one would own anything else if the AR was as reliable as you claim it to be. However there is a huge market segment that is constantly looking at newer designs primarily due to wanting a more reliable, cleaner running firearm. People today want more than just ergonomic weapons- they also want a weapon that doesn't recycle used carbon directly into the receiver. Remember, Stoner himself corrected his work by designing the AR18 and that rifle now stands as the basis for many modern equivalents. However if an individual was not able to afford newer technology, the AK does offer a robust and reliable clean running piston alternative.

EDITED TO ADD: Almost forgot. One of the videos I watched last night was from the AK Operators Union.

They had two malfunctions during the video.

Maybe they should have fired it underwater.[/B]

While firing underwater does help lubricate an AK rifle- it isn't necessary. However the two malfunctions were likely caused by all the aftermarket US made junk Rob has hanging off the weapon.


M

[Doc Safari]

I edited my comment because I figured it would rustle some Jimmy's. 99.99% of the people would admit that 87% of the time stats are simply made up to support their position. If what you stated was true then no one would own anything else if the AR was as reliable as you claim it to be.

AHEM. AK's have a mystique like Jeeps have a mystique. Both are ultimately inferior to other options. Now, I'll grant you, if the AK you're talking about is a Galil or Valmet, then, yes, they may be the ne plus ultra in reliability. I might even trade my best AR for a really good Galil or milled Valmet.

Trouble is most people are stuck with traditional ComBloc quality AK's, AKM's, AK100 clones, and whatnot, and those tend to be plagued with quality control issues, even if those issues are largely due to the ape engineering done in the US factories un-banning them.

However there is a huge market segment that is constantly looking at newer designs primarily due to wanting a more reliable, cleaner running firearm.

And one of those market segments is the US military that, despite many tries, has yet to find something to completely replace the latest M16/AR15 derivative.

People today want more than just ergonomic weapons- they also want a weapon that doesn't recycle used carbon directly into the receiver and by default, the end user's face. Remember, Stoner himself corrected his work by designing the AR18 and that rifle now stands as the basis for many modern equivalents. As such the AR18 is now the future of small arms development. However if an individual was not able to afford newer technology, the AK does offer a robust and reliable clean running piston alternative.

M

The AR18 was made to give third world technology a shot at being able to manufacture a Stoner-designed weapon. It's not "better" than the AR15. In fact some people say it's not even as good in some details. What it does do is make manufacturing an AR compatible with factories that can fold and stamp sheet metal but not anodize and forge aluminum. And I think you don't give the AR15 enough credit: I've heard the term "shits where it eats" referring to the carbon blowing back into the receiver, too. That stopped me from owning one for many years. But it's a manageable fault. People still shoot thousands of rounds through their AR's without much cleaning. The carbon buildup is hardly a problem.

And don't think that AK's can't and don't break or malfunction. They do.

[Doc Safari]

However the two malfunctions were likely caused by all the aftermarket US made junk Rob has hanging off the weapon.


M

I don't see how that's possible. I do see a possibility that it's the crappy US-made magazine, though. Which brings up another point: reliability depends as much on the magazine and ammo as the weapon itself.

EDITED TO ADD: Oops. Forgot to post the "snarky answer."

Here's the "snarky answer:" Oh, so AK's work fine when fired underwater or full of sand, but not with accessories attached to them, huh?

(I must be slipping).

[RetroRevolver77]

I don't see how that's possible. I do see a possibility that it's the crappy US-made magazine, though.

Which brings up another point: DON'T USE CHEAP US MADE GARBAGE ACCESSORIES ON YOUR AK RIFLE.
(I must be slipping).

You're slipping alright, I fixed it for you.

The truth is, had the drunken general been handed a Mini-14 to shoot watermelons with at that fateful 4th of July party- you'd all be here jibber jawing about how awesome the Mini-14 is since New Zealand and Canada would be using it as well. Thus proving the Mini-14's tier one face shooting status. Anyway, so while the AK was the culmination of small arms design for the last century, Stoner did manage to eek out the AR18- which now serves as the basis for modern weapons designs in this century.

M

[Doc Safari]

The truth is, had the drunken general been handed a Mini-14 to shoot watermelons with at that fateful 4th of July party- you'd all be here jibber jawing about how awesome the Mini-14 is since New Zealand and Canada would be using it as well. Thus proving the Mini-14's tier one face shooting status.

I suppose this is probably correct. With a product improvement program the Mini-14 might have become something special. Look how the Galil developed into the Galil ACE.

Anyway, so while the AK was the culmination of small arms design for the last century, Stoner did manage to eek out the AR18- which now serves as the basis for weapons designs for this century.

M

Right, the L85A1 was a GREAT rifle. All those people who said it was a piece of shit are just DEAD WRONG.

http://ak-scans.wikia.com/wiki/Armalite_AR18

Even though the AR-18 was considered a commercial failure, several other firearm manufacturers used the design as the base for their own products, such as the British L85A1 bull-pup assault rifle, the Singaporean SAR-80, the Australian Bushmaster M17S, the Japanese Howa Type 89 and the German H&K G36.

Despite the fact that the AR-18 was generally considered to be a simple, accurate and reliable rifle, it still suffered various malfunctions during its evaluation trials carried out by different countries including the United States and the United Kingdom. During the US trials, the AR-18's performance was found to vary depending on ammunition used, and the evaluating board concluded that the AR-18 would require additional minor changes before it could be considered for adoption as a service rifle. The British Ministry of Defense found the gun unsatisfactory during mud and sand trials. The rifle was also known for its loose folding stock, which caused problems after extensive use. In 1965, Armalite made several minor modifications to the design, but unfortunately, no army was interested in acquiring a new 5.56 mm service rifle.

As mentioned, the AR-18 is a simple, cheap and considerably reliable gun. However, malfunctions may still occasionally happen and the rifle's reliability seems to depend on the type of ammunition used. Harsh environmental conditions (dirt and mud) may also have a negative impact on its performance. Moreover, the hinging mechanism of the folding stock is prone to becoming loose (especially after extensive use), which makes the stock wobble.

My take: The AR18 had a lot of potential but would have required a lot of development, like the AR10.

[RetroRevolver77]

My take: The AR18 had a lot of potential but would have required a lot of development, like the AR10.

The AR18 is what serves as the basis for nearly all modern western designed rifles being made today. Giving us the AUG, FN SCAR, FN 2000, British SA80, B&T types, ACR, HK 433, G36, CZ Bren, Radom MSBS, Beretta ARX, etc. Even the short stroke gas piston in some of the modified AR15 variants borrows on the AR18. I'd argue the AR18 is one of the single most influential rifles ever created yet very few seem to realize that.

[Doc Safari]

The AR18 is what serves as the basis for nearly all modern western designed rifles being made today. Giving us the AUG, FN SCAR, FN 2000, British SA80, B&T types, ACR, HK 433, G36, CZ Bren, Radom MSBS, Beretta ARX, etc. Even the short stroke gas piston in some of the modified AR15 variants borrows on the AR18. I'd argue the AR18 is one of the single most influential rifles ever created yet very few seem to realize that.

Influential or not, a lot of the designs you listed have had problems of their own. If I read one more bad review of the SA 80 I'll probably puke. I know a lot of the things that plagued designs such as the AUG, for example, may not have been directly related to its basis on the AR18, but the point is: No design is trouble free and no matter how many guns are based on the AR18 that doesn't make it necessarily "better". Lots of weapons are designed on the AK, too, because it's easy to manufacture. Not knowing all the technical specs I suspect the AR18 is simply easier to build in a lot of ways than the AR15.

[RetroRevolver77]

Influential or not, a lot of the designs you listed have had problems of their own. If I read one more bad review of the SA 80 I'll probably puke. I know a lot of the things that plagued designs such as the AUG, for example, may not have been directly related to its basis on the AR18, but the point is: No design is trouble free and no matter how many guns are based on the AR18 that doesn't make it necessarily "better". Lots of weapons are designed on the AK, too, because it's easy to manufacture. Not knowing all the technical specs I suspect the AR18 is simply easier to build in a lot of ways than the AR15.

The AR15 is a design dead end. The AR18 proved that.

Now try to snatch the pebble from my hand young grasshopper and from there you will learn of your failings.


M

[Doc Safari]

The AR15 is a design dead end. The AR18 proved that.

Now try to snatch the pebble from my hand young grasshopper and from there you will learn of your failings.


M

LOL. Personally I think the AR15 is like American football and the AR180 is like soccer. Nobody can do American football or the AR15 like Americans (maybe Diemaco--Colt Canada--is the exception), just like the rest of the world prefers soccer and could care less about American football.

I think the only way to settle this debate is to get military types who have used both in combat and ask them which one they prefer. I wonder how many people like that are out there?

[Ed L.]

The truth is, had the drunken general been handed a Mini-14 to shoot watermelons with at that fateful 4th of July party- you'd all be here jibber jawing about how awesome the Mini-14 is since New Zealand and Canada would be using it as well. Thus proving the Mini-14's tier one face shooting status.

Uh, no. The Mini-14 is not a durable or reliable platform to the level that the AR was. They constantly break down and die without making it through shooting classes.