something I've always wondered about AR vs. AK...

[RP88]

this topic went in all different directions

what I was mainly getting at were construction materials grade and techniques. I'm well-versed in how they function, but not how they are built, or what exactly differs with the AK. I imagine that shot-peening, MPI, HPT, etc. are things that AK makers never did and don't do now. I imagine that a clever blend of carbon-vanadium alloys and chrome and 4150 steel isn't what the barrel is made of.

The main point was, the last thing I saw on certain specs of an AK was that a lot of it was 4130 steel. So what makes me chuckle is how anyone who buys an AK has no problem with it working, but the moment someone gets an AR that has a barrel that is only 4140 and not CMV or isn't MPI'd or HPT'd they flip out and can't fathom that gun surviving a carbine course or a day in the jungle.

It always made me curious about the whole debate on how the AK is rugged but the common misconception of the AR is that it is fragile, despite the fact that it seems way more overbuilt than an AK.

 

[seanie!]

It always made me curious about the whole debate on how the AK is rugged but the common misconception of the AR is that it is fragile, despite the fact that it seems way more overbuilt than an AK.

You kind of nailed it right there. I have no horse in the AR v. AK race, as I love them both equally. But, in my personal opinion, the AR seems to be as overbuilt as it can be in all respects, as to where the AK seems to be overbuilt where it needs to be, but built just good enough where it doesn't.

 

[leadcounsel]

The AR15 poops where it eats - meaning that it sprays hot fouled gases back into the highly technical and tight fitting chamber/star cluster which pushes the bolt rearward and cycles the action. These hot dirty gasses quickly build up and harden and this causes stoppages. Throw in some dirt, grit, sand, dust, water, etc. and you have a mess. Like running a high performance car on dirty gas, or a high performance athelete on junk food and sodas - the system just gets clogged and stops.

When you clean an AR15 after shooting you can see the filthy dirty caked on carbon residue and it is a chore to clean it and keep it clean; a very important chore.

Conversely, the AK47 uses a piston near the front of the rifle to push the bolt rearward. A very simple and IMO a much better design. The hot gases are released into a chamber above the barrel, where they push against a concave piston-head, and that pushes rearward. The piston head gets fouled, but the bolt and chamber stay relatively clean. This, along with greater tolerances in machining, make the AK47 so much more durable and reliable and a better platform in these areas.

 

[rubicon923]

The AR15 poops where it eats - meaning that it sprays hot fouled gases back into the highly technical and tight fitting chamber/star cluster which pushes the bolt rearward and cycles the action. These hot dirty gasses quickly build up and harden and this causes stoppages. Throw in some dirt, grit, sand, dust, water, etc. and you have a mess. Like running a high performance car on dirty gas, or a high performance athelete on junk food and sodas - the system just gets clogged and stops.

When you clean an AR15 after shooting you can see the filthy dirty caked on carbon residue and it is a chore to clean it and keep it clean; a very important chore.

Conversely, the AK47 uses a piston near the front of the rifle to push the bolt rearward. A very simple and IMO a much better design. The hot gases are released into a chamber above the barrel, where they push against a concave piston-head, and that pushes rearward. The piston head gets fouled, but the bolt and chamber stay relatively clean. This, along with greater tolerances in machining, make the AK47 so much more durable and reliable and a better platform in these areas.

Yes, I think the most significant difference is the direct gas impingement action of the AR15 vs the gas piston action of the AK. Not only is the AK action inherently more reliable, but it also seldom breaks parts.

The weak point in many semi-auto actions is the extractor. There are thousands of 7.62 x 39 Saiga's in use in this country, but no spare extractors (long story that I won't get into). I have never heard of a Saiga with a failed extractor. Another data point, Mark Graham (the "gunplumber") reports that of the thousands of AKs that have passed through his hands over the years, he has seen ONE extractor failure.

Compare this to AR shooters that pack extra bolt parts if they want to be sure of making it through a weekend of training.

The AK is an extremely robust and simple design. For example, the AK is sometimes critisized for having the charging handle on the "wrong" (right) side. My FAL has the charging handle on the "correct" (left) side, but doing so requires making a long, horizontal cut on the left side of the receiver and the FAL charging handle mechanism contains 8 parts!

IMO among military rifles, the AR-15 and the AK represent opposite ends of the reliability spectrum.

 

[Leaky Waders]

I am not too familiar with the AK, but prior to my last deployment I ran my 'AR' for 4 weeks during training with blanks and live fire exercises including qualification with no internal cleaning. I merely wiped the outside off and threw some clip on the bolt. I had one failure to feed that was fixed by tapping the charge handle. Although I didn't shoot thousands of rounds through the rifle before cleaning, I did shoot alot of freaking blanks though it - others in my squad didnt want to shoot there's do to 'carbon build up'. So I happily obliged.

I did the same thing with the beretta with no issues. (no blanks for beretta, just all live rounds).


Searching wiki earlier concerning the ak - I found it funny that the new ak's are going to be chambered in 5.56 nato.

I think the cost disparity in ak and ar platforms are mainly due to employee wages in the origin country and paying for qc checks...only my opinion though.

 

[happygeek]

Oh God, blanks are freaking terrible. Even the flash suppressor gets dirty as all hell.

I've put right about 3,000 rounds through a Colt 'AR' in two days with just wiping the bolt down and re-oiling at the end of the first day. Had one FTF due to a crappy cheap aluminum STANAG mag. I can't speak as to how it'll function with foreign matter in the action, but I personally haven't had much trouble with carbon fouling. It is a pain to clean afterwards though, I probably spent 3 hours scrubbing that thing out on the 3rd day. Probably spent an hour with a dental pick on the bolt & bolt carrier alone.

I am a big fan of pistons when it comes to cleaning afterwards. I got a Sig 556 and so far the bolt, bolt carrier, and chamber have been staying remarkably clean. 90% of the carbon gunk seems to stay in the gas plug, gas piston, and gas tube.

It's really just a matter of preference though, would you rather clean the bolt carrier or the gas piston? I have yet to see one of those mythical self cleaning rifles, but I keep hoping to some day.

 

[Carter]

The AK design is simple and has loose tolerances, and also very heavy since it is made from mostly steel. The AR is made out of higher cost lightweight yet durable products and made to higher specs for greater accuracy. Also, buying anything American made, and generally European (like a sig) is more expensive than those "backwards" post communist countries using a "inferior" and "outdated" rifle. So its also a bit of biased feelings of American shooters, and massive stockpiles of AK rifles and parts.

 

[benEzra]

Certain AR parts (bolt, bolt cam pin, etc.) are more highly stressed than AK parts, because the AR parts are (1) thinner and (2) subjected to much higher temperatures.

If you compare an AK bolt to an AR bolt, an AR has lots of skinny little locking lugs arranged radially; an AK has two huge locking lugs on opposite sides. The skinny lugs are more prone to crack because they are skinny and because it is impossible to stress them symmetrically, hence the AR bolt must be made out of a higher grade of steel, the heat treating has to be just so, shot peening to put the surface under compression, MPI to check for tiny flaws, etc. The AK bolt doesn't have to be quite so perfect in order to hold up. The working pressure of 5.56x45 is also about 10,000psi higher than that of 7.62x39mm (I want to say 7.62x39mm runs around 45,000psi and 5.56x45mm around 55,000), which puts the AR bolt lugs under heavier loads.

Second, the AR's DI system is ingenious, but requires very precisely made and fitted parts with good quality control. The AK's system is a lot more tolerant of parts mismatch; the gas/piston interface is confined to the gas block and piston face.

Finally, as to the clearances and whatnot, a big part of the AR's vulnerability to small debris is the fact that the AR bolt carrier assembly is completely surrounded by a very close fitting tube that conforms to its shape, whereas an AK's bolt carrier assembly runs on rails and is surrounded by a lot of open space inside a big square receiver. There is more room in the AK receiver for crap to get out of the way of the bolt carrier than there is in the AR receiver, irrespective of the actual bolt-carrier-to-bearing-surface clearances.

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

Could it be labor costs?

 

[winchester '97]

As has been stated, the parts that need careful machining and finishing in an ak have them, the parts that dont, dont. And all ak weapons are a lot more accurate than people think with stock sights, almost every person who puts tech sights on an ak rifle reports much improved accuracy, i wonder how an AR type would perform with sights off an ak?

 

[mshootnit]

I have seen enough AK hammer and trigger pins with wobble in them to make me wonder if the AK is really better or not. I definitely think its simpler which helps it alot. One thing is for sure, the AK milsurp stuff is built well or overbuilt so you never worry about the rifle not functioning with crappy mags (there aren't any unless they are American) or crappy ammo. The AK setup is a system and the goal of the whole system is to make the rifle go bang every time the trigger is pulled. Now the M16A3 or M4 is also a hell of a good weapon, but there is alot of non milspec stuff out there. So much that the AR system in general becomes much less reliable. Anonymous mag or ammo? can you be sure it will fire in an AR? I wouldn't be so sure. AK? yep.

 

[Tirod]

The AR15 poops where it eats - meaning that it sprays hot fouled gases back into the highly technical and tight fitting chamber/star cluster which pushes the bolt rearward and cycles the action. These hot dirty gasses quickly build up and harden and this causes stoppages. Throw in some dirt, grit, sand, dust, water, etc. and you have a mess. Like running a high performance car on dirty gas, or a high performance athelete on junk food and sodas - the system just gets clogged and stops.

When you clean an AR15 after shooting you can see the filthy dirty caked on carbon residue and it is a chore to clean it and keep it clean; a very important chore.

This graphic description isn't really on topic, and I wonder what is really being discussed, assault rifles, or chickens?

Let's remember that every blowback operated pistol and rimfire rifle does the exact same thing, exhaust the hot, dirty gasses back into the action. It's exactly how they work, too. The bolt/slide is not locked, once open and while the case is still partially in the chamber, hot dirty gasses are expelled into the mechanism.

Name your favorite pistol and then think about it. 10/22? Poop eater. Stoppages due to caked on deposits? Not hardly.

Next, go figure, the deposits are caked on? Implies a huge lack of lubrication, the #1 disagreement in the hole chain of maintenance. The subject matter experts, the Ordnance Branch, and most experienced users say LUBE IT UP. Deposits can't cake up if you keep them liquid, and they clean up better, too. It's counter-intuitive for most inexperienced new users, and new soldiers are a bit lazy as they have been conditioned to think creatively in work avoidance. Commanders want them inspection ready in the rack, as other commanders and inspectors still insist on cleanliness and dry storage to please them and get good evaluations. "To heck with doing it right, just do it the way I said."

On top of all that, the number of actual AR owners doesn't seem to include those who constantly post the misinformation. It would have a lot more credibility if someone said, "My X brand AR 15 only went XX rounds before jamming due to actual bolt friction between the carrier and upper from handfuls of gas deposits." But, no, that sort of real world data, even if a sample of one, is never posted.

It's more imflammatory to put out the legend of the chicken than actually do the test themselves, and that's the end game, stir up some attention without any real commitment.

AR's and AK's don't have the same maintenance or maintenance schedule, and that goes back to the logistics of the Army using it. One obviously has more resources than the other.

 

[nalioth]

I am sorry, Tirod, but your example is flawed.

The AR15 is unique in that is recycles hot nasty exhaust gas directly back in to it's bolt carrier group.

Does the 10/22 do that?

Blowback guns follow physical principles - high pressure to low (IOW, the exhaust gases vent to the nearest outlet - they are not directed into the inner workings).

 

[41magsnub]

I am not too familiar with the AK, but prior to my last deployment I ran my 'AR' for 4 weeks during training with blanks and live fire exercises including qualification with no internal cleaning. I merely wiped the outside off and threw some clip on the bolt. I had one failure to feed that was fixed by tapping the charge handle. Although I didn't shoot thousands of rounds through the rifle before cleaning, I did shoot alot of freaking blanks though it - others in my squad didnt want to shoot there's do to 'carbon build up'. So I happily obliged.

I'm having a hard time with that statement. I recall my M16 lasting for maybe a magazine with blanks before it would malfunction on every round. So much crap blew back into the action that the bolt would drag. It would not cycle at all after firing, I would have to treat it like a pull action that required a forward assist to seat the round all way.

 

[Owen]

41, it doesn't matter what gun you are shooting with blanks, a filthy jammed gun is the result, because the hot gasses exit from the chamber end of the barrel. Under normal operation, the case is stuck to the chamber wall, keeping it clean until the pressure is down. The majority of the dirt goes out the muzzle.

While the inside of the AR receiver does get filthy, I have yet to see stoppages caused by that filth. My personal M4gery (a S&W M&PT) hasn't been cleaned in 4000 rounds or 5.56, and 5-6000 rounds of .22LR with a CMMG conversion.. I give the bolt carrier a squirt of 3 in 1, before I start shooting again, and I haven't had any issues with 5.56. The CMMG conversion does need to be cleaned often becuase it gets gummy, but that isn't using the DI, is it?

 

[jeepguy]

i think ak's seem cheap to us here in the US becuse we mostly see surplus. if some US manufacturing company made an ak from scratch instead of comblock parts it would not be cheep. even krebs are around 800+ (i think), and they start with saiga's. also we would americanize it better sights,longer lop, & a way to attach every thing but the kitchen sink lol. i do like the vz 58 though, better design.

 

[Leaky Waders]

"I'm having a hard time with that statement. I recall my M16 lasting for maybe a magazine with blanks before it would malfunction on every round. So much crap blew back into the action that the bolt would drag. It would not cycle at all after firing, I would have to treat it like a pull action that required a forward assist to seat the round all way."

I just kept the bolt well lubricated - the Sergeant had like a windex bottle with CLP in it. Oh, and one more thing I did and failed to mention...I did punch the bore after taking off the BFA before going to the range shooting live rounds.

Nevertheless the weapon was real dirty afterwards. I qualified on it. And, my time for final cleaning in the tent prior to turn in to the armory was really no more than the average person. The junk came right off except for the bolt, had to scrape the carbon off of it near the rings. But others had to do the same things to theirs too.

Other people in my company new about my little experiment and were always commenting - are you sure you didn't take that thing apart and clean it?

I really have no secondary gain either way to make the statements. I leave again in the fall - one year this time. I'm not sure if I have to go to the same training again. If I do, I'll repeat the process and report back.

 

[Jaws]

AR's and AK's don't have the same maintenance or maintenance schedule, and that goes back to the logistics of the Army using it. One obviously has more resources than the other.

So you tell me that US introduced the maintenance intensive M16 just to show off that they have more money to burn on maintenance?

Nah. It's the design. One was designed with reliability and easy maintenance in mind, the other one wasn't. As simple as that. The Russians don't care how their combat weapons looks on the outside. Function is what matters.

I remember watching a documentary on the captured Mig-21 by the Israelis. They loved it. All it took was fuel and oil and it kept flying for weeks. The Israeli pilots said something like this:
It isn't so pretty like our planes, you can see big rivets and imperfect joints on the outside, but it didn't matter. It was still going Mach2.
Specially back in the communist years the designers didn't fool around with the reliability of their designs. If it failed in combat, they risked the gulag or worse.
Had the M16 early problems happened in Russia during war, Mr. Stoner would have end up in gulag together with the generals that pushed the M16 in service.

 

[jhallrv4]

Simply, I've built two AK's from parts kits (Romanian). I can't imagine building an AR from a kit, you know, with me building the receiver and all.
Nobody has mentioned that the AK has two versions, the stamped steel receiver and the milled. Still, you need to see the video of the AR/M16 in full auto, and the AK in full auto. While remembering that they were designed to be used in at least burst mode, if not full auto. The AK is perfectly capable of delivering the first shot to the target. Good luck Jack with the rest of the shots! That baby is flexing all over the place. Spray and pray. The AR/M16 on the other hand, is rigid, and if you can hold it down (made easier with the proper muzzle brake, and the more direct line of recoil helps) you can really connect with the target, more than once.
5.56...small, yes, but FAST. 7.62...large, but slower. The 5.56 will bounce off a hard surface with maybe some dust, the 7.62 will blast it's way through. That is significant only if the target is a hard surface, and not a n'er-do'well BG.
In a recent engagement in Afghanistan, the limiting factor for the M16 types was heat. Not crap in the workings.
This isn't a definitive conclusion, just some more information for the discussion.
I like to shoot the AR. I like to shoot the AK. A lot of us shoot the AR in NRA Highpower matches. Nobody shoots an AK. But then, the NRA targets aren't shooting back.
Finally, the high-pressure NATO rounds really do tend to burn all the crap from the cartridge. Low pressure civilian rounds don't, to the same extent. In my experience. Yes, KEEP IT WET. Early in the life of the M16, it was believed you could run it all day and it didn't need cleaning. When they got the truth out about cleaning and keeping it lubed, almost all the problems went away. Go figure.

Blast away,
Jeff

 

[Hatterasguy]

The Galil is the only some-parts-compatible "western standards" implementation of the Kalashnikov, the others are just compilations of the best features from many weapon systems (including the AK) - but not anywhere close to being compatible with the Kalashnikov.

The SIG 5XX series is extremly comparable to the AK. The bolt, carrier, and op rod are an evolution of the AK design, as is the mag and mag catch.

The Swiss wanted a very reliable system that was also very accurite, something that the AK couldn't quite deliver. So they changed a bit and really brought it up to Western standards. This also resulted in the costs coming up to Western levels...

They had no desire to copy the AK, they took the design and changed it to suite their needs, but they are still in the same family.

The Americanized 556 version with all the crappy AR like features is less so, but the guts are still the same.

The FN FNC is also a fantastic rifle in its own right.

 

[RedLion]

I remember watching a documentary on the captured Mig-21 by the Israelis. They loved it. All it took was fuel and oil and it kept flying for weeks. The Israeli pilots said something like this:
It isn't so pretty like our planes, you can see big rivets and imperfect joints on the outside, but it didn't matter. It was still going Mach2.
Specially back in the communist years the designers didn't fool around with the reliability of their designs. If it failed in combat, they risked the gulag or worse.

Great job, you connected the AK to a supersonic fighter jet, what would you connect to the American F15 eagle, which has never been shot down? And failure to hit a target doesn't score anymore points than a design that is underestimated in its reliability. Plus, isn't it a little disconcerting that the country responsible for both of these engineering "marvels" no longer exists.....hmmmmmm.......

I'm pretty sure no one on the internet really knows what specific materials and process go into making a quality AK versus a quality AR, and after reading most of this thread I'd hate to even wonder.

 

[-v-]

Anyone who fails to hit a man-sized target with an AK out to 300 meters is obviously not doing their part of the equation. While the AK is (due to its looser clearences and tollerences) not a match-grade firearm, it is still a battle-rifle that is expected to be able to hit to 300 meters.

A rifle (or any piece of equipment) is only as effective as the operator. After all, they are tools there to extend the capabilities of the operator, nothing more.

I bet if you had the Israeli's fly MiG's and SU's exclusively you would see an equally successful air-power, with just as few (or maybe fewer!) combat losses as they enjoy today. Main reason they didn't is the political backing of Israel throughout the cold war...and the cold war was about exclusive buyer agreements only.

The point that Jaws was making is that Soviet equipment was built to be functional, not elegant. If it works, is durable, and looks like a flaming turd, its a winner. Looks aren't important on the battlefield and in war, but reliability and dependability is.

That, and last I checked "Russia"...the territorial, political, societal, and cultural core of the USSR still very much exists.

 

[RedLion]

That, and last I checked "Russia"...the territorial, political, societal, and cultural core of the USSR still very much exists.

Ask anyone over 50 to respond to that one, and certainly if they lived behind the Iron Curtain.

A rifle (or any piece of equipment) is only as effective as the operator. After all, they are tools there to extend the capabilities of the operator, nothing more.

Excellent point, and maybe if the operator is effective at taking care of their weapon system, their weapon system will be effective in taking care of them!

The point that Jaws was making is that Soviet equipment was built to be functional, not elegant. If it works, is durable, and looks like a flaming turd, its a winner. Looks aren't important on the battlefield and in war, but reliability and dependability is.

The point I was making is that not all American made/used weapons are unreliable pieces of sh**, and they aren't selected for their aesthetic qualities. Just because there were some flaws in the original adoption of the M-16 that have been fixed, does not make the M-16 a poorly designed machine.

I have no idea what Kalashnikov or Stoner were thinking when the designed their rifles, and no one else here can say what was going through their minds when they did design them, or what problems might have plagued the early AKs. This makes it very hard for someone to say that Kalashnikov held reliability as paramount, whereas Stoner, and General LeMay were misplaced fashion designers.

 

[lathedog]

I have had the same curiosity. About price point for various firearms, not the stuff about chickens and MiGs.

There seems to be a relatively low price point for basic .223 AR's due to the wide availability of the various parts. Economy of scale. The more refined AR's jump in price pretty fast. An example is the extra grand it will run you to go with a piston driven AR vice direct impingement. That is starting to change, but it shows the cost of development for a subsystem that is different than the mil-spec design. That cost gets passed to the consumer.

Another design that I don't "get" is the PS-90 at $1300. What I see when I hold one looks more like $500 to me. Compare with the AR-57 at $700.

I concur with previous posts that an AK built in the US with all US made parts would be pricey compared to the ones made in state controlled arsenals or re-built from parts obtained overseas.

Thanks to the posts on tolerance vs fit. I get a sick headache every time I hear the usual line about tight tolerances causing problems.

 

[Tirod]

it sprays hot fouled gases back into the highly technical and tight fitting chamber/star cluster which pushes the bolt rearward and cycles the action.

No, my example is not flawed. A blow back action does this. It's the only way it can work.

The AR15 is unique in that is recycles hot nasty exhaust gas directly back in to it's bolt carrier group.

It doesn't recycle it, it uses the pressure to unlock the bolt. The cartridge operates the action by direct pressure on the bolt face, like any other semi auto.

The example is fine, what is lacking is an understanding of how weapons operate, and what operator maintenance is required to keep them running. The average soldier in the Army isn't a combat soldier, they don't handle weapons daily, and training on proper use and lubrication gets reinforcement on range days once a year.

Combat soldiers use and carry their weapon multiple times a week, get familiar with it's operation, and understand the TM's requirements for "generous lubrication" will actually save them time and prevent malfunctions.

The often repeated internet myth of a carboned up and choked M16 falls short when actually used long term. Mike Pannone recently released a report on using his AR without ANY lubrication, and it functioned up to the 2,500 round mark without stoppages. Another interesting post on another forum showed temperature graphs of piston vs DI guns with measurements of the bolt, gas tube, and gas block. DI guns rarely ran more than 25* warmer at any location, especially the bolt.

My concern is that there are lots of AR haters out there who repost a lot of myth and misinformation on the operating cycle, but who don't own one or find out for themselves the reality of it's use. If they had actually experienced using the AR, their story would at least be about their example of one, not an unfounded fabrication repeated over years and embellished with an untasty visual example.

And it would at least be consistent - which is it, the interior or exterior that is getting the caked on deposits? I've seem that on bolt tails, but that is a non contact area, and has literally no bearing on operation.

Moot point, the TM on operation says "Generously lubricate." As most accusers probably have no access to the weapon or training in it's operation and maintenance, I find their objections fail to have credibility.