Alright Jow Forums, I want to know something about the AK-47.
Why is it widely accepted that this rifle can go longer without cleaning and maintenance than, say, and AR? Not trying to start an AK vs. AR war here, I'm just curious as to what makes the AK more robust than your basic bitch AR. I hear a shit ton of anecdotes on AKs going for longer periods of time cleaning, but I want to know why that is.
Its simplier and built to be robust and treated like shit by drunk russian peasents.
>Why is it widely accepted that this rifle can go longer without cleaning and maintenance than, say, and AR?
That’s more of a meme than truth
The AK and it’s derivatives have looser tolerances than the ARs. Watch videos of people disassembling them and you’ll see why.
Modern piston Ar's are just as reliable.
Less little moving parts, looser tolerances, overall more simple design.
It doesn't blow hot gas/carbon back into the receiver to cycle the action like an AR. It's also got loose tolerances, and the reciever has more open exposure than an AR, helping if stay cooler, cleaner
Yeah, and shit moa groups
(dont even try to argue otherwise)
>muh match grade ammo
Modern AKs are 1.5-2 MOA.
Also, you are a faggot
(dont even try to argue otherwise)
I honestly don't understand amerifats obsession with "groups". Is it that these people only have the opportunity to fire their weapons in controlled environments at paper? The last thing I think about when shooting my AK is if it's 2moa or 3moa
"Groups" and MOA are literally what accuracy is determined by you drooling retard.
Its just a standard of measuring the mechanical accuracy of a gun, not that there is any realistic difference in anything under 3 MOA that isnt ultra long range sniping.
It was pretty much was designed knowing soldiers that would use it and knowing that they would neglect the shit out of it. What makes it more robust than the AR?
>long stroke piston
>more tapered case
>tons of space in receiver for dirt, carbon, crud so it doesn't gum up the action or trigger mechanism
>typically overgassed for really strong extraction and ejection
>beefy bolt and carrier
The AR is a more sealed action to keep things out and does a very good job at that. But when enough stuff does get in, particularly in the trigger mechanism, it does run into some problems. The crux of the AR is that it requires lube. With lube the AR can run for a very, very long time. It's not really a maintenance heavy gun, it just requires more attention than the AK. So in contrast, especially in these exaggerated comparisons, it seems like a high-strung rifle.
Neither does a piston AR
wow, I bet you're fun at parties. Do you haul weapon into woods and carefully place in complicated rest system? Pull thread that is tied around trigger? Gleefully wait for opportunity to measure holes in piece of paper down range? Become erect when holes are marginally closer together than previous attempt?
I get so hard thinking about such good times
>AK-47
No such thing.
>AK-47s are reliable
>go into /akg/
>Don't buy AKs from these companies, they'll explode:
>List all companies that make AKs
American ak companies with a few exceptions are cranking out cracker jack shit.
Most imports are good quality and arsenal is good quality.
Yes there is.
This kind of also goes against the idea that AKs are uber cheap compared to ARs. I can buy a decent M&P 15 Sport for pretty damn cheap but buying an AK that is cheaper than that is generally considered a shit rifle.
Gunfight Rule: "Use a weapon that works every time. All skill is in vain when an angel pisses in the flintlock of your musket."
The point of achieving the best possible mechanical accuracy is so that you know you will hit where you're aiming, even at extended range and under stress. It's about being able to rely on the weapon to put a round exactly where you want it to go, as opposed to a cone of fire that's measured in minute-of-barn.
Run rapid fire drills from fucking backflips if you want, but make sure your weapon is mechanically accurate first so you don't waste your time on a system that doesn't work.
Cones of fire are acceptable for machine guns only. Idiot.
AK-pattern rifles have large allowances in the receiver that allow for more carbon fouling before malfunction- the firing chamber and receiver are typically kept more free of carbon than an AR-15 by virtue of using a gas piston.
The Ar-15 is actually better sealed against mud and dirt, but needs to be cleaned somewhat mroe regularly
That's true now, but before Saigas were import banned they were great rifles. I still have 2.
They make piston ARs. You can buy one.
Pic related.
Wrong, wrong and again wrong. Every firearm needs regular maintenance. No matter if AK, AR, FAL... you name it. There was only one russian weapon which worked no matter what. It was Sudayev SMG.
I'd pick AR over AK anytime.
wow, I must consider wether AK works. Tbh I watched Discovery channel documentary and they said AK works but I have not tested accuracy. Maybe I should start to develop hand loads to get that .09moa edge for serious gun battles
Conglaturations.
It's a meme, I own both
The AK gets its reliability from its robust construction with good quality forgings and proper riveting on stamped receivers. The reason that American AK's are shit is because they do not use parts within the specs that Kalashnikov designed. Soft metal that isnt properly heat treated and rivets that are poorly crushed do not make for a reliable weapon.
AK's are cheap when you have a state arms industry that tooled up massive factories to pump them out. AK's require massive investments in tooling to properly make. The cheap AK meme came from the days of Egyptian and Chinese imports from their military factories. It's not the 80's anymore.
Distance is your friend. The more you can increase the distance between you and your opponent and still hit them reliably, the more likely you are to survive and also kill them. To that end, having as accurate a rifle as possible is your best choice while also balancing it with reliability.
also please post your most effective AR15 kata
The AK is known for reliability because a stupid conscript can neglect the weapon and it will still run. It wont work with rocks and dirt and shit in the action, but cleaning is as simple as dunking it in a river and oiling it with motor oil from a toyota. AR's are tightly engineered and are designed for educated professorial soldiers who can take care of things such as gas rings and use q-tips to get carbon out of the weapon on a regular basis. Both are great weapons, but the AK can be neglected to a much higher degree and still work long term.
Enjoy your carrier tilt. If you properly maintain your rifle a DI gun is perfectly fine. Unless its using an Ar-18 design piston ARs are kind of usless imho.
Mechanically simplest reason: that tube above the barrel has a piston rod inside it that pushes the bolt back using the gas from a shot. On an ar15, that tube has no piston but instead uses the gas to push the bolt back directly. The gas is dirty, it gets in the bolt and can cause malfunctions but that doesn't happen in an AK. The ar15s operation makes it more accurate though. Imo, ar15 is simpler than an AK for that reason..
Early on the m16 had a lot of issues due to bad ammunition and it kept the stereotype.
I can shoot gallon jugs consistently at 500 yards with my ar15
Venting gasses into the receiver is a non-issue and actually provides positive pressure in the system that helps keep debris out. Sure it will foul up sooner, but not in any meaningful amount of time.
Because we can’t have full auto, so the emphasis is placed on squeezing every bit of performance possible from semi.
the AK can rack up a much higher round count without cleaning, due to the long stroke piston. The gases that cycle it are kept further away from moving parts, therefore carbon and lead buildup is very low.
Further, you must also consider bolt design. The AK has two large locking lugs compared to the AR15's 7 smaller lugs. Theoretically, having larger lugs means less sensitivity to caked on debris. My experiences support this: the AK handles being filthy better, and doesn't fail to go into battery like an AR would under such conditions. On top of that, the AK unlocks slower which also contributes to less buildup.
It also isn't as picky about lubricants as the AR. Some of my best kalashnikovs are still bone dry, I left them as they came from the factory. You simply can't do that with the AR15, you have to keep them wet as a slut for ideal function. In some sort of extended disaster scenario when oils and grease are a precious commodity, I'd want an AK.
The downside to the AK is that the action is wide open to the elements, so debris can make its way inside easier, as demonstrated by InRange's mud test.
Overall I love and enjoy both platforms, but after years of shooting both I have become more and more of a Vatnik.
Good luck catching that unicorn.
They would still be cheap but import restrictions have really taken their toll on the AK market.
> can't import a normal semi-auto AK since 1989, must have unthreaded barrels, no pistol grip, bayo lug, etc
> Finland stops importing the RK series
> in order to make imported AK's look not gay the importers now have to install an arbitrary number of US-made parts (922r)
> No more Chinese imports after 1994
> Steel-Core (basically all surplus) 7.62x39 banned from import in 1994
> AWB passed in 1994
> After 1998 you can't import rifles that take standard AK magazines, resulting in single-stack magwells and rifles without bullet guides
> FEG runs into financial problems, no more Hungarian imports after 2004ish
> ATF decides in 2005 that AK parts kits must have torch-cut barrels
> Saigas banned from import in 2014
> Super cheap 7n6 5.45x39 surplus ammo banned from import in 2014
> Veprs banned in 2017
Basically it's getting harder and harder to find a quality AK in the US. Parts kits are slowly drying up and rising in price while many manufacturers use subpar US-made barrels to assemble them. Companies like IO inc, Century Arms, DDI, and PSA are manufacturing domestic AK's that suck and still aren't cheap. Romanian and Bulgarian imports are of good quality but are high in price because they're fulfilling military contracts and not importing regularly. Zastava is relatively consistent in their imports but it seems their quality has fallen somewhat.
Holy shit I've heard about AK import bans, but never took anytime to learn about them.
What's with this shit, why are all these guns banned from importation?
I agree with most of your post but the lube part. Higher end ar15s do pretty well without lube, for the first couple thousand rounds in my bcm went flawless using Tula and cleaned/lubed only on assembly. Should also mention that piston guns and less lock up make for an inherently less accurate design; can't have a cake and eat it too.
Tbh, PSA AKs are decent but my turn off is for just a little more you can buy something with a chrome lined barrel
Some American gun makers want less competition and most politicians are happy to help with anything that reduces gun count
They're just too scary, user. How about a nice Remington 700 or Mini 14 instead?
Oh yes, because we all know that Soviet Steel is the pinnacle of metallurgy and American Steel is cheap chinese grade stuff, right? Many of the "American AK" problems stem from things like hardened hammers bashing the bolts apart, where soviets had softer hammers that would deform against the bolt (easier/cheaper to replace a hammer than a bolt)
Libs hate scary guns, many progun organizations are supported by domestic manufacturers and fudds, both of which don't care if scurry foreign assault guns are restricted from import.
His gripe isn't that Americans can't, it's that they don't. Instead of using forged or billet, cast is used. Something something AKs are cheap peasant guns with loose tolerances should work anyways might be to blame them for trying to do it the cheapest way possible
Rifle Dynamics makes a damn nice AK, but they're expensive as hell. My WASR has been holding up great though
OP here, I have another question. One thing I keep seeing being mentioned is the "loose tolerances".
Assuming you all meant actual tolerances (acceptable amount of parts deviation from specified plans) and not clearances. I'm just failing to see why having a rifle that can be built with parts utilizing less quality control when being assembled would lead to a more reliable weapon.
The RD guns are just Arsenal SGLs they dress up. Good guns, but the same quality is available cheaper.
they're mistaking "tolerances" and "clearances". The AK has large clearances, but not much greater tolerances than contemporary rifles.
If there's more room between moving parts it's less likely to seize when foreign debris enters.
It has both larger tolerances (i.e. there is a wider variation between parts) and therefore has to have greater clearances (i.e it's sloppier) to avoid the parts with maximum adverse tolerances binding. So the whole thing is less accurate, cheaper to manufacture (tight tolerances cost money) and, because of the sloppiness, more tolerant to some shit getting in.
>American metallurgy is awesome by definition
>Soviet metallurgy if shit by definition
>Americans are unable to produce bad steel
>Soviets are unable to produce good
For your own sake I hope you are 14 years old or younger.
Since the AK is overgassed, it is able to handle more carbon buildup than an AR
Since the AK is overgassed, it is able to function without lubricant (at the cost of slowly destroying the gun)
Any other reason is invalid
Any AR with a carbine length gas system is overgassed.
Moron.
You are going to sit there...and tell me the undisputed titanium masters of the universe have bad steel? Nah man fuck yourself
not true, you can overgas the fuck out of an AR and you will not get the same result as an AK. There's much more to it than that
This. And the mud test
My mom told me I should never buy a Norinco gun ever.
>taking any female's opinion on guns seriously
>ever
Leaf?
Their AK's are considered top tier in the U.S. Partly because of their collector value, and partly because they were well made. I've fired a few Norinco's including a blue bolt AK. They were all very nice and smooth shooting. Pic related.
That's wrong as fuck
literally true, there is no such thing as too much gas.
According to some Swiss and Frog gun owners, current civilian production Norincos are of lower quality than Cugir (Romanian) AK's. The ones from the 80's and 90's were really nice though.
His gripe is that we don't heat treat (QC problem, but happens) or crush rivets correctly (??????). Did you read what I wrote? It shows a bit more knowledge about the actual problems. Half the people in this thread would probably heat treat the rivets. Like this guy. Almost would guarantee it:
sucking Russian dick so hard he probably had to remove his teeth first. Doesn't know shit about the AK's problems.
Politics, plain and simple.
There's not one part of your post that makes sense.
100% misconception
AKs can handle being neglected and shitty ammo
they can't handle debris for SHIT and their design isn't simple in the slightest
its positive reputation can be attributed to being a actual modern assault rifle in a era where everyone was adopting already obsolescent battle rifles and the early m16s >>*AMMUNITION*but muh public perception reliability!
make a observation
if tier 1 special forces guys from EVERY county can pick whatever fancy new weapon they want why do they favor ARs so heavily?
out of sympathy?
if the m16 in Vietnam was so bad why did the uber famous navy seals request colt to develop a brand new carbine version?
it makes sense when you understand the truth
NZ fag here, id say thats patently false, i have an NHM90 sporter made in 2012, its a lovely rifle, the finish on the woods a bit shit but all the metalwork is fantastic, its a great little gun
>Can't handle debris
The whole design of the rifle was made the way it is to allow exactly that. Large parts and lots of space in the receiver show for it to not be bogged down by debris. Unless you mean big globs of mud, like the in range mud tests, which is an unrealistic test.
>Design isn't simple
Yes it is, it's bent metal, rivets and forged/milled parts. The rifle has like 6 or 7 moving parts, which is far fewer than other rifles. Middle easterners are making them in huts with scrap metal and hand tools. They may not be quality, but they still work.
>Special forces
They pick it because most militaries now a days use 5.56 NATO for their main cartridge, it's wide spread use makes logistics easy. The rifle is more easily customized to the end users preference than an AK, which makes it more popular.
>In Vietnam
The m16 was bad in Vietnam, initially, because they issued then without cleaning kits because they said the rifle was self cleaning. No maintenance, and using stick powder instead of ball powder made for a very dirty gun and caused it to fail in alarming numbers. Many American troops preferred to ditch their rifles and take the AKs off dead enemies, but this wasn't a popular thing to do, because lack of logical support for ammo and magazines and the fear of getting shot at by your own men for sounding like the enemy. However, once they solved the issues with the m16, it did gain a lot of favor, and was a good rifle.
>Lists all American manufacturers that make AKs
European made AKs are fine. They're just not imported often anymore because of ATF fuckery and communists hating money.
Regulating socialism imports is important.
>Tbh, PSA AKs are decent
They're not. Headspace on mine was fucked, threading on the muzzle was fucked,. Sent it in to get fixed. It took them 3 months to send me the label, get it fixed and send it back. They didn't even give me tracking # for return shipping so it just showed up one day. Luckily I was home. Even then it wasn't fixed and the bolt was deforming the front trunnion. I sold it for $400 to some Mexican woman because I knew she'd never shoot it so it wasn't a danger to anyone.
It's like you made a post entirely out of memes. GG.
*has no knowledge of the quality of metal forging the Soviets did and why they are the masters of titanium
Stating facts is a meme now? Do some Google searching, read some history, educate yourself. And come back with a better argument and facts.
Titanium expertise has little to do with steel. Believe it or not, AKs were made of steel, and had no titanium components.
Soviets were always a little behind on steel.
AK is shit get a CZ and never look back
>Stating facts
>GIs would pick up enemy AKs because they were better
Gun store fudd lore from the guy wearing a Vietnam Veteran hat isn't "stating facts," and the rest of your post is retarded and full of half truths or conjecture.
One has parts you could break with your bare hands to disable the rifle and the other doesn't.
What can you break on either of them with your hands?
>inanimate objects hold political affiliations
k.
You could probably disable an ar 15 charging handle by pushing on it with your limp dick lol
What about newer I.O aks?
I could easily bend the buffer tube which would disable the rifle. In fact if you drop the AR15 wrong or fall on it this can happen
It's meant to be used by conscripts in apocalyptic Stalingrad-like bloodbath battles where hideous numbers of people are killed.
On the flip side, it is also meant to be used by illiterate peasant farmers/shepherds who don't know what soap or toilet paper is so they can overthrow a corrupt bullshit government in Africa or the Middle East.
So it has to be loose, simple in design, and Fischer Price retard simple to operate and maintain.
The two rifles are neck at neck for OPERATING RELIABILITY
>HOWEVER
An AK will ALWAYS be easier to fix in case something goes wrong.
I always explain it to people this way, it takes about 5 minutes to teach someone to use an AR15. it takes about 30 seconds to teach someone to use an AK.
Except that's wrong.
teach someone to use an ARgoes like:
ok jam the mag in, pull the doohicky, take the safety off, bang bang. Good job. Drop mag by pushing the button. Look, it even tells you when it's empty. Now put a new one and slap the side. Good job.
>teach someone to use an AK
ok rock the mag in
no
no
not like that
rock it in
ROCK IT IN
ok finally, now drop the safety and rack the bolt, bang bang
fucking finally good job
you're empty stop flinching
ok, now to look cool whack the magazine out with another one and rock it in
rock it in
no
no
we literally just did this come on
yes, finally
now rack the gun, yes with your clumsy noguns hands reach over and rack it
Every time.
>An AK will ALWAYS be easier to fix in case something goes wrong.
This is kinda true, just because simple things often go wrong with AKs due to their low production quality. Things that simply don't happen with ARs. ARs rarely have issues right out of the box, and if they do, it can be fixed, but probably not by you. Because it's probably really fucked. And it will likely just be solved by part replacement.
With an AK, you get hammer. You get sandpaper. If it can't be fixed by those, you get a new rifle altogether.
well, AR's are garbage to start, but the answer to your question is people just over clean their range toys.
I had an I.O. Sporter and it practically self destructed.
Over gassed as fuck doesn't hurt either
>wow, I bet you're fun at parties
>gives sarcastic reply while be the autistic asshole whining
Like poetry.
Norincos are all good. I own 4.
If there was no such thing as an AK-47 why would the Russians look into making it cheaper/improving it when making the AKM?
When did you get yours though? Probably bullshit but I heard they upped their production quality sometime in the past 2 years.
the AKM replaced the AK which is what entered production and what the russians adopted into service
the actual 'AK-47s' were only prototypes, and virtually don't exist in the wild
>You can easily bend the buffer tube
>With your bare hands
You for real?
>In fact if you drop the AR15 wrong or fall on it this can happen
No.
You don't seem to know what Type 1 through Type 3 AK47s are.
No you can't and no that won't happen.