Many Cold War years ago, every man in my unit was issued a select fire, folding stock Romanian AKMS in 7.62 x 39. These served as our primary armament although every man was also issued an M16A1.
Our wartime mission dictated us going deep into the rear of Warsaw Pact territory and aerial resupply after infiltration was realistically never going to happen. It made sense to use the same weapon as our potential foe for several reasons:
1. Using enemy ammo allowed us to conduct battlefield recovery / resupply
2. Using AKs would allow us to avail ourselves of parts, repairs, or magazines found locally (hopefully from a guerrilla force)
3. Using enemy ammo would give us the small auditory advantage of potentially confusing the enemy during a contact (all weapons firing would sound alike)
4. Any Resistance movement would no doubt be AK equipped and thus our advisory/training role demanded that we have intimate familiarity with the weapon to be carried by our new allies
We carried them, swam with them, jumped them, trained with them (live & blank), and conducted all of our qualification shooting with them. We tended to shoot both M16s & AKs any time we fired for record. What I noticed as an instructor was that good marksmen had no difficulty qualifying expert on Army qualification ranges with either weapon...while poor or average shots invariably posted higher scores with the M16A1.
At the time, most of our mid-to-senior grade veterans of SE Asia were very familiar with the AK and some had (on occasion) carried them in combat. Although they all respected the weapon, none of them were particularly enamored of the AK and, to a man, preferred the M16A1. We were then (1970s-1980s) very much focused on long term Guerrilla Warfare scenarios conducted in rural areas (same-same as Partisan Operations during WWII). Combat marksmanship was very much locked into distance shooting across open country or woodland and with an ancillary focus upon close range contact drills in heavy vegetation. All of this left over from the previous couple of wars...
As we gradually began to focus more on the necessity for conducting urban combat ops...and started to develop modern CQB concepts...we realized just how horrible the AK was for conducting those ops when compared to the ergonomically superior AR. Of course, the M16A2s we were temporarily saddled with weren't all that hot for the purpose either (due to their length, poor balance, and weight).
Eventually we fielded the updated version of the old CAR-15, and issued everyone M4A1s...and never looked back.
The old Romanian AKs went to wherever elephants go to die. With the demise of the Warsaw Pact, there was no longer a valid reason to keep them except for running familiarization training.
I went into Afghanistan with 5th SFG in late 2001 and just returned from Iraq in 2011. There have been many deployments in between (all equipped with an M4A1). I've kept a locally procured AKM or AKMS available as a spare weapon on all those deployments. Those AKs never left the wire or vehicle. Typically, everyone keeps a few stashed in operations centers, cave mouths, bunkers, vehicles, or sleeping quarters just to have backup firepower and the ability to arm folks who might not normally have an issued long gun. Why not? AKs are essentially free when downrange and everyone likes to have extra toys.
I've known a handful of contractors who had to carry AKs due to poor logistical support or host nation mandate. I've seen a few folks carry one because 1) they weren't issued a rifle or 2) they just wanted to be different (and could get away with it). I am aware of a few US troops who temporarily carried AKs to make up for a shortfall in long-gun issue, usually tankers (who were not all MTOE issued an M16 for the 2003 invasion of Iraq).
Although everyone keeps extra AKs around as emergency backups, I've never seen any US SOF voluntarily carrying one on a mission. I've seen teams carry them as confidence builders when training AK-armed indigenous troops. Seeing their American mentors carrying the same weapon as they do instills confidence among the locals, but when the rubber meets the road...and there is a mission to do...it's AR all the way for US troops. Here's why:
The AK has abysmal ergonomics for a rapidly evolving CQB fight. The Safety/Selector switch is one of the most poorly placed designs ever fielded, magazine changes are excruciatingly slow compared to the AR, the weapon is not conducive to mounting optics or accessories, the trigger pull is atrocious, practical accuracy is not nearly as good as an AR, ammo is heavier, and lethality not as great as with 5.56. Lastly...opening up with a weapon that has a different sound signature is a sure-fire way to draw friendly fire. No thanks.
I have owned several personal semi-auto AKs over the years and appreciate the robust simplicity of the design. The otherwise useless folding stock is handy for operations in aircraft, vehicles, and boats as well as making for a very compact and jump-able weapon. However, a folding stock blows for practical use (getting hits). When both AKs and ammo were dirt cheap in the US, it was hard to argue against owning one. Nowadays, not so much (although a $400 - $500 CAI AK and 1000 rounds of ammo is still a financial deal compared to more expensive black rifles & pricier bulk 5.56).
Although I intellectually believe that the AK is a more mechanically reliable system than the AR, I've never noticed any practical advantage that would weigh in the AK's favor and cause me to prefer it over an AR. I've seen just as many hard broke AKs in the real world as I've seen clapped out ARs. I've also never experienced the alleged internet shortcomings of DI when carrying the AR. My M4A1s (and those of my unit) have worked quite reliably for many years, under atrocious conditions, and with high round counts. YMMV.
In summary, although I've always been around AKs and owned AKs, I've never remotely considered carrying one in preference to an AR...except for when my entire military unit was deliberately armed with AKs (and out of logistical considerations vice actual weapon performance). I have periodically owned different AKs just because I enjoy a variety in my firearms collection.
Just my $.02
