Flaws in the AK design: By an AK lover.

[jerkface11]

An HK416 IS an AR15!!!!! However it the SIG and the Tavor are more expensive. The controls on the SIG are basically the same as the AR. I've seen no evidence than any of them are noticeably more reliable than the AR either. So no none of these rifles meet the criteria set earlier.

 

[benEzra]

I am still waiting for someone to show me a fast reload-with-retention drill for the AK. As in, I just ripped off 10-12 rounds, I want to replace the on-board mag with a fresh one, but I do not want to smack my depleted mag in the butt with my fresh one and send it skittering across the deck, I'd rather place it in a pocket or dump pouch in case I need the rounds later.

Grab the magazine in the gun with your left hand, thumb on the release, fingers wrapping around the front of the mag. Press the release with your thumb, remove the mag, place in pouch, grab fresh mag, insert.

How is that any slower than an AR? You still have to grab the mag and put it away, and pressing the release with your trigger finger (AR) is no faster than pressing it with the thumb of the mag-changing hand (AK).

And if you are reloading an empty AK with retention, it is same as above except after you insert the mag, you reach under the rifle (behind the magazine) and slap the charging handle with your left hand. Not all that much slower than slapping the bolt release on an AR, and if the AR's bolt is closed, probably faster than running the AR's charging handle.

As Gabe Suarez and others have noted, most of the AR's reloading speed advantage is in reloading an EMPTY gun WITHOUT retention of the spent mag, which is probably not all that common in combat (but can be important in IPSC, 3-gun, etc.). When reloading a non-empty gun with retention, an AK isn't significantly slower.

If you can reach ACCROSS the rifle that quickly, imagine how quickly you could charge it if the handle were on the right (left) side.

Maybe half a second faster. And having the charging handle on the right side is necessary to allow mounting optics on the left side of the receiver, and allows the safety lever to seal the bolt handle slot against dirt and mud when the safety is on.

And if the bolt is down and you need to cycle the action, it's still easier to slap the charging handle of an AK with your left hand than it is to cycle the charging handle of an AR with either hand, IMO.

You can put the charging handle on the left side with a Lightning Bolt or somesuch, but the drawback is an open gaping slot in the left side of your gun for dirt, sand, and gravel to get in. I personally like it like it is.

 

[AK103K]

With the AK, you ALWAYS stroke the bolt after any reload. That way there is no doubt the rifle is loaded.

I've had the bolts on AR's go forward on an empty mag before more than once, so they arent exempt from an empty chamber after a reload either.

 

[Justin]

Me thinks our friend Justin might be drinking a bit too much AR Kool Aid on his birthday. The AR is great, and is enhanced by a choice of a stronger caliber than the .223, but let's not go overboard in regards to how great it is.

The AR15 is predominantly the choice of competitive shooters in both High Power Service Rifle matches as well as for National Match guns. These are iron-sighted or peep-sighted rifles that are shot out to 600 yards.

The AR15 is the overwhelming choice among Multigun/3 Gun competitors.

For close in hosing, the AK can generally keep pace with the AR, but once you move to distance shooting the stuff that most people consider to be minor nits become a major hindrance to getting rounds on target.

Regarding the reliability issue, I think it's generally overblown. If AR's were not reliable competitive shooters simply wouldn't use them. It's arguable that they require more maintenance than an AK, but even then, it's not that hard to clean a rifle, and the likelihood that any of us will ever find ourselves in circumstances where we're depending on a rifle that we haven't been able to clean on a regular basis is practically nil.

 

[JR47]

An HK416 IS an AR15!!!!! However it the SIG and the Tavor are more expensive. The controls on the SIG are basically the same as the AR. I've seen no evidence than any of them are noticeably more reliable than the AR either. So no none of these rifles meet the criteria set earlier.

Really? Than suppose you list the interchangeable parts?

Try reading what was written. Exchange rates, and private, small numbers, purchases are no way to actually compare prices.

I've seen no evidence that the common M4, or M16A4, is capable of this outstanding competitive accuracy mentioned. Purpose-built guns are just that, and not at representative of more production-line guns. Most of the award-winning ARs have to be single loaded to gain that last, award winning, accuracy.

That the modular system is capable of being built into a stellar performer is obvious. However, the average gun is no where near that capability.

What I have seen by shooting the Sig, and the Tavor, is that both of them are more accurate than all but the most expensive ARs, out of the box. This isn't read a book, or watch You Tube statistics, but hands-on experience.

 

[briansmithwins]

The AKs 'unergonomic' controls are all right in the same area, easily accessed by the right hand: Bolt handle, safety, mag release are all a short move away from the trigger/pistol grip.

On the AR, the controls are spread out on both sides of the rifle and require both hands: Trigger, mag release, forward assist (not that you should be using it) and safety are all run right handed. Bolt release and charging handle with the left hand. The rifle can be operated quickly, but it does take training.

For close in hosing, the AK can generally keep pace with the AR

True, if you consider close in hosing to be hitting man sized targets out to 300 yards.

Realistically, men wearing drab clothing tend to be damn hard to see at 300 yards, much less past that. BSW

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

Other than that, I think it's the ultimate rifle

I agree. All 4 of your problems are fixed by the Robinson XCR which uses the Kalashnikov system (in essence). That makes the XCR the ultimate in both your book and mine, I guess.

Plus it fixed the rock-in mag problem too, in addition to those 4, by creating a "push & lock" simple AR style mag insertion. For those that say "this is not a problem; look here at this ol' boy who does lightning fast mag changes with an AK", my answer is - Let's see him do that with massive adrenaline dump, tunnel vision, loss of fine motor skills, cottonmouth, etc., when people are shooting back.

The XCR ALSO makes the charging handle non-reciprocating, but enables instant 2-way bolt control with a simple push-in of the charging handle to engage the bolt carrier.

The XCR ALSO has an adjustable gas system, for good measure, as if the kalashnikov operating system is not good enough. But just in case, for that 0.0000001% situation where you're not able to clean more often than every 5,000 rounds.

The XCR ALSO allows a much better sighting system, with many more/better options.

The XCR is ALSO highly modular, AND better made, AND lighter, AND so on. The XCR ends the AR vs. AK debate. It takes the best of both and combines them; there is no more debate. Sorry, I've been sippin the XCR koolaid a bit.

 

[RockyMtnTactical]

I think a lot of the problem with comments like this is, a lot of this depends on what you have experience with to judge everything else by. Even then, whats your experience level with anything you do know and is it a realistic comparison? Have you actually taken the time and effort to learn to properly use "any" of them, or are you just partial or familiar with one type or family and everything else is lacking?

It doesn't matter. The AK does have the worst ergos. You don't have to defend it. You like the AK? That's fine. The AK has plenty of good features and is a venerable firearm. However, it's not perfect. The ergos simply suck, compared to anything.

 

[Evil Monkey]

You can't engage in a logical conversation, speaking negatively on what the second party is emotionally attached to.

You can tell, in this example, a person who loves AK's that his favorite rifle has serious and quite obvious issues and that person will come back with a really lame excuse or rebuttal.

You can't take an emotionally attached person seriously anymore. This thread can't be taken seriously anymore.

 

[benEzra]

The AKs 'unergonomic' controls are all right in the same area, easily accessed by the right hand: Bolt handle, safety, mag release are all a short move away from the trigger/pistol grip.

On the AR, the controls are spread out on both sides of the rifle and require both hands: Trigger, mag release, forward assist (not that you should be using it) and safety are all run right handed. Bolt release and charging handle with the left hand. The rifle can be operated quickly, but it does take training.

To run an AK most efficiently, the mag release and bolt will be run with the left hand, assuming you are right handed, and the right hand will run the safety and trigger. Some people may be able to run an AK quickly while doing everything with only the right hand, but most people do best with the right hand staying in firing position.

 

[elmerfudd]

I agree. All 4 of your problems are fixed by the Robinson XCR which uses the Kalashnikov system (in essence). That makes the XCR the ultimate in both your book and mine, I guess.

Plus it fixed the rock-in mag problem too, in addition to those 4, by creating a "push & lock" simple AR style mag insertion. For those that say "this is not a problem; look here at this ol' boy who does lightning fast mag changes with an AK", my answer is - Let's see him do that with massive adrenaline dump, tunnel vision, loss of fine motor skills, cottonmouth, etc., when people are shooting back.

The XCR ALSO makes the charging handle non-reciprocating, but enables instant 2-way bolt control with a simple push-in of the charging handle to engage the bolt carrier.

The XCR ALSO has an adjustable gas system, for good measure, as if the kalashnikov operating system is not good enough. But just in case, for that 0.0000001% situation where you're not able to clean more often than every 5,000 rounds.

The XCR ALSO allows a much better sighting system, with many more/better options.

The XCR is ALSO highly modular, AND better made, AND lighter, AND so on. The XCR ends the AR vs. AK debate. It takes the best of both and combines them; there is no more debate. Sorry, I've been sippin the XCR koolaid a bit.

+1 If I had a spare $1400 lying around, it would be my number one gun to acquire. I was at the range a few weeks ago and one of the guys there had an XCR and he was getting honest MOA groups out of it. That impressed me greatly. Lots of people talk about shooting MOA like it's the norm, but usually the only folks you see actually doing it are the ones with rests, bolt actions and neat little boxes of handloads and the occasional scoped and free floated AR.

 

[AK103K]

It doesn't matter. The AK does have the worst ergos. You don't have to defend it. You like the AK? That's fine. The AK has plenty of good features and is a venerable firearm. However, it's not perfect. The ergos simply suck, compared to anything.

Whether or not the ergos suck or not, is all simply a matter of opinion, hopefully based on experience, but very often, on the lack of it. Just because you think they suck, doesnt mean everyone else does or has your troubles working them.

I like AK's, then again, I know how to work one. I took some time and effort to learn, and I stay up on it, and a few others. I like M16's/AR's OK, lots of experience with them too, been shooting them since the 60's, just like the AK's. Dont have any trouble working either of them. I really dont see all that much of a difference between them either, but thats me. I'd be perfectly happy to have one or the other, but the AK just shoulders and shoots slightly better for me. Did you know that the standard AK stock has the EXACT same LOP as the M16/M16A1's? Thats why I like the A1 stocks on my AR's. Funny how the AK's stock is "too short", and now everyone loves the M4's slider. Oh sorry, but I digress.

Ya know, come to think of it, theres nothing wrong with HK's(I'm really surprised no one has bitched about their charging handles and manual of arms), or M14's (in case anyone missed it, the AK's mag and charging handle work just like an M14's, and you know how everyone just loves the M1A), Valmets are nice, Galil's aint bad, I dont find FAL's to be particularly accurate, but they work. M1's are OK. Etc, Etc,.

My point still is, if you cant make the gun work, its really not the guns fault. Just a lack of effort to learn on your part.

This thread can't be taken seriously anymore.

Can any of them?

Lots of people talk about shooting MOA like it's the norm, but usually the only folks you see actually doing it are the ones with rests, bolt actions and neat little boxes of handloads and the occasional scoped and free floated AR.

Another well stated point.

Its always interesting when you talk to someone about shooting, how well they always do, until you go out to the range with them, and they bring out all of their "stuff", and sit down on the bench. What counts more? Tight little "groups" on a bullseye target fired from a bench, or good "hits" on a target that has no aiming point that you can hardly see at 2-300 yards, fired from a realistic field position?

My AR's will shoot those nice tight little groups from a bench, my AK's, not quite so nice, but not near as bad as your usually told. The funny thing is, when I shoot at those other kinds of targets from those other types of positions(which is how I usually shoot anyway), my groups from both rifles are very similar at the same ranges. Usually good hits for the most part, just not ragged little holes. Kinda makes you go hmmmm.

Like I said, really not all that far apart.

 

[RockyMtnTactical]

Whether or not the ergos suck or not, is all simply a matter of opinion, hopefully based on experience, but very often, on the lack of it. Just because you think they suck, doesnt mean everyone else does or has your troubles working them.

I like AK's, then again, I know how to work one. I took some time and effort to learn, and I stay up on it, and a few others. I like M16's/AR's OK, lots of experience with them too, been shooting them since the 60's, just like the AK's. Dont have any trouble working either of them. I really dont see all that much of a difference between them either, but thats me. I'd be perfectly happy to have one or the other, but the AK just shoulders and shoots slightly better for me. Did you know that the standard AK stock has the EXACT same LOP as the M16/M16A1's? Thats why I like the A1 stocks on my AR's. Funny how the AK's stock is "too short", and now everyone loves the M4's slider. Oh sorry, but I digress.

Ya know, come to think of it, theres nothing wrong with HK's(I'm really surprised no one has bitched about their charging handles and manual of arms), or M14's (in case anyone missed it, the AK's mag and charging handle work just like an M14's, and you know how everyone just loves the M1A), Valmets are nice, Galil's aint bad, I dont find FAL's to be particularly accurate, but they work. M1's are OK. Etc, Etc,.

My point still is, if you cant make the gun work, its really not the guns fault. Just a lack of effort to learn on your part.

I don't know if this is all directed at me personally or if you are speaking generally, but I have plenty of time behind an AK. I own AK's, I like AK's. However, I am not so blinded that I refuse to see any downsides with them.

However, you seem to be using arguments in your post that simply do not apply to me. The stock length on the AK doesn't bug me (however, the A2 stock on an AR15 does). I don't care for the M1A much.

The AK is an excellent weapon. They wouldn't be in circulation quite like they are if they weren't. However, it is a fact that certain things about the AK are not perfect. The ergos is it's most glaring weakness. Maybe it doesn't bug you. We all select our firearms of choice based on our preferences and desires.

I can guarantee you that an expert with an AR15 can reload twice as fast as any expert with an AK though. It's a simple fact. No matter of training can fix that unless you were born with 3 arms.

Bottom line is, a man with an AR15 is at no real advantage over a man with an AK when all is said and done, and vise-versa. Just saying, the AK has lousy ergos.

 

[RP88]

well, a person with an AR and a person with an AK and a dot sight within 300 yards of each other are pretty even

sorry, but if there is one thing that I'll agree on, it's that the AK's iron sights do not have nearly as good of anything going for them as the peep sights do.

also, I can reload both fairly fast. The AR reloads a bit faster, but only a bit. That three times comment needs some youtube evidence of said experienced AR shooter and AK shooter reloading.

 

[AK103K]

I don't know if this is all directed at me personally or if you are speaking generally

Nope, not at you specifically, just things in general. Yours was the closest pointing it out.

No matter of training can fix that unless you were born with 3 arms.

I dont get this part. I use both hands to do the AK's mag change, just like I do with the AR's. My hand never leaves the grip and I release the mag with the middle finger of the hand on the grip. I agree, the AR's are a tad faster, but I wouldnt say the AR is twice as fast.

well, a person with an AR and a person with an AK and a dot sight within 300 yards of each other are pretty even

exactly

 

[JR47]

Then why haven't the Finns adopted the AR, instead of the Valmet, and, now the Chinese AKM? Or the British, or the Germans, or the French, or the many other states, large and small? Many of the smaller ones use the AK variants, even when the M16 is readily available to them.

There are constraints placed on smaller countries that prevent them from buying, and maintaining, the M16 that just aren't in the AK. The M16 requires more training, and a higher level of personal maintenance than the AK. It also requires a more technical logistics tail. There are any numjber of armies that just cannot provide that. Some lack money, others are dealing with conscripts who have a much more relaxed attitude about what constitutes maintenance.

The M16 is really almost as old a technology as the AK. It was first conceived in the early 1950's. Unlike the American military, the Soviets were loathe to modify a successful weapons system. Only in the past decade have we really seen updates in AK technology. Compare the AR to the latest Soviet iteration of Assault Rifle.

This is like talking about how unergonomic the 1903 Springfield is compared to the M40A3. What we do with the AK of 1947, which is what you're talking about, as they are all that's available, is talk about the features of a 1947 model, as compared to a 2008 model.

The poster who mentioned that the thread was no longer relevant was correct.

 

[RP88]

if you look it up, you'll find that the AKM has changed very little. The biggest leap was the AK74's muzzle brake and the new 5.45 round, which are found in today's newer AK models. Other than that, I'd wager that the AKM, the AK74, and the AK-10(1, 2, 3) all feel very similar in terms of ergos. The don't get much different until you go into the second AK-10x series, where the internals, gas tube, etc. are heavily modified

 

[taliv]

i'm not going to get into this argument, since one side clearly lacks the benefit of experience...


but i am very curious what hits the ground about 4:58 or so into that video the bsw posted on page 1 of the chubby guy in camo showing some AK manipulation.

from the look on his face, it doesn't appear he was expecting it. was that a live round? a piece of the gun? what?

 

[nalioth]

Other than that, I'd wager that the AKM, the AK74, and the AK-10(1, 2, 3) all feel very similar in terms of ergos. The don't get much different until you go into the second AK-10x series, where the internals, gas tube, etc. are heavily modified

The only major difference in the traditional AK design and the AK-108 is the gas tube. It is longer to accommodate the "Balanced Automatic Recoil System".


You may be thinking of the AEK-971 or the AN-94 when you refer to the 'different ergos'.

 

[RP88]

it wasn't just the gas tube, I thought. I do remember there being a new barrel design and a radically different muzzle brake, as well as the 'auto balanced recoil system', unless I either saw a different pic or something.

and as for the AEK and AN...yeesh. They just look...well, look at it. I truly don't see what either of those guns offer.

 

[Wolfgang2000]

First I agree the ergonomics of the AK are bad. But you must remember that in the middle to late 40's ergonomics wasn't even a word. It was designed be a combat soldier. When your life is on the line you want your gun to work, first time, every time.

Another thing to remember is that the European think differently about some things. Like the drop free magazine. The U.S. didn't have drop free magazines, in a rifle, till the the M16 family came on the scene. Then the magazines were suppose to be semi disposable.

The Europeans don't want magazines lost in the snow. So weapons are designed so that the shooter has to manually remove the magazines. If you think back a little you will remember that the original Glock mags were not to "drop free" unless they were less than haft full.

AK's can be improved. Just look at the Valmet and the Galil. That said the AK and several innovations that have been copied in one form or another by many arms designers. Remember the design is over 60 years old.

Can a combat rifle be designed that is as reliable as the AK with better ergonomics? Sure. But they haven't yet, and I doubt they can do so for what you pay for the present day AK clones.

You like you AR poodle shooters, , great, I'm glad you do. Me I'll stick with guns that I KNOW WILL WORK, first time every time.

 

[FMJMIKE]

I do not understand why people say the AK ergonomics are so bad. I prefer an AK over an AR-15 any day of the week!!! The AK is perfect as is....IMHO....

 

[Evil Monkey]

The Europeans don't want magazines lost in the snow. So weapons are designed so that the shooter has to manually remove the magazines.

What?

 

[Glock Glockler]

Evil Monkey,

It makes the logistics of supplying your army a lot easier when you don't need to ship them as many magazines. Dropping mags might be fine when competing in gun games in AZ but in deep snow and mud it's an issue.

 

[Evil Monkey]

It makes the logistics of supplying your army a lot easier when you don't need to ship them as many magazines. Dropping mags might be fine when competing in gun games in AZ but in deep snow and mud it's an issue.

Mags will be lost no matter how the mag lock into place. Or you can say mags can be accounted for no matter how they lock into place.

Point is, how a magazine is made and how it locks into the rifle has nothing to do with how well a soldier accounts for them.