I find it strange that people say the AK's charging handle is badly placed and then hold up the AR as a masterpiece of ergonomic design. Left or right side doesn't bother me one bit. Up against my nose while I shoulder my rifle doesn't make any sense at all. So then they'll tell you that there's no need to worry about the AR's goofy charging handle because you can just hit the bolt release when you change a mag. Fine, but you wouldn't have needed a bolt release in the first place if the charging handle wasn't in a goofy location. Then they'll tell you that you have to have a bolt hold open so you know when you're out of ammo. Nonsense, go to any firing line anywhere in the world and see if that's how it really works out in actual practice. But everybody's a ninja, of course. So then I point out that the AR's charging handle is useless as a forward assist and they show me the one built into the side of their reciever. So now we're up to two unnecessary components because of the goofy location of the charging handle.
People complaining about the safety is only slightly more bizarre. How are you going to fight anybody with your safety on, with the bayonet??? If you're fighting take it off and leave it off, if you're not then put it on. It's not rocket science, the Russians understood this ages ago as is evidenced by the design of the old Mosin Nagant rifles and TT-33 pistols. The Makarov doesn't even have a safety, neither did the Nagant revolver. But Gaston Glock was a real revolutionary when he designed a gun without a safety.
Along those lines the AK's safety is too noisy but racking the slide on a shotgun makes badguys soil themselves. And here I thought the best course of action was just to shoot the enemy and not worry about his state of emotional being?
The sights, well, what's wrong with those? It's the same exact sight picture I have on my pistol and I don't have a problem hitting quickly or accurately with either. If anything it makes transitioning easier. Heck, if anything it's a plus that that the AK's rear sight is a breeze to adjust for drop at various ranges and the designer was even so thoughtful as to include a battle sight zero that effectively covers all ranges up to 300 meters. Peep sights are ok too though some obscure more of your field of view than others.
I can't figure out why anybody tries to mount optics to the dust cover when there are two military AK rail systems to choose from, either the Beryl style or the ubiquitous side rail. The side rail has the advantage of holding zero when you remove and reinstall the optic. The flat top on some AR's is a nice feature, it's also a relatively recent modification. You could achieve the same thing on the AK by simply making a railed rear sight block.
As for the dented gas tube "design flaw," well, spare gas tubes are cheap. Buy one and see what it really takes to dent it enough to kill the gun. I have. Good luck.
Two other weird ideas are related. Some folks try to say the AK was designed for untrained peasants which is why it works reliably without complain while the AR may require more maintenance from the user it gives advantages to a trained professional. I say horse hockey to that. The AR doesn't do anything special the AK doesn't do too. It's not like the AR shoots around corners or anything. As for who designed it or why, it was designed by an educated soldier with combat experience to defend his country.
Some people want to talk about accuracy, ok, I'll go there. There is nothing inherently inaccurate about the Kalashnikov action. I've seen Veprs in .308 and .223 that shoot teeny tiny groups with quality ammo. There are only three variables in AK accuracy and they are, in order of importance,
1 Shooter Ability
2 Quality Of Ammo
3 Quality Of Rifle Build
My SA M7 A1R will hold three inches or under at 100 yards with Russian commercial 7.62x39, the least consistent ammo available in that caliber. If I can see it I can hit it.
Other people object that the AK is some kind of "commie" or "enemy" weapon. I don't understand that either. Mine was made in Las Vegas after a pattern developed by Bulgaria, an allied nation. Many other people own AK's made in another ally nation, Romania, which forcefully overthrew its communist rulers. As far as I'm concerned AK's are natural born freedom fighting defensive rifles that have been known to take quite a bit of game and be a lot of fun on the range too.
I've given a lot of thought to what I would like to change on the AK, especially at the beginning of my involvement with them. I was trained on the M-16, the AK is very different from that rifle. At first I tried to make the AK more like an AR but that resulted in bolting on a lot of stuff that just didn't need to be there. Then I had a Matrix moment. I realized there was no spoon so it wasn't the spoon that needed to bend, but me. Or something like that. Right around then the AK started making sense. I thought it was hilarious when I found what Gabe Suarez was teaching because I came to just about all the same conclusions independently though in much the same way. When all is said and done I feel the rifle is fine the way it is set up right now and if there's some special feature like an optic or folding stock I want to add there's already a good, solid AK solution for it. The one major modification I'd like to see is a rear sight block with rails instead of a sight, the AK's version of a flat top. It would also be nice if the mag release was a bit more rounded off on the edges from the factory. Voila! 21st century AK-47!