henschman
Member
I started out with com-block rifles when I was a teenager, then dabbled in both them and ARs for many years, before finally realizing that I don't really care for either one, and deciding that I am more of a .30 battle rifle kinda guy.
My experience with the AK versus the ARs is that my AKs have all been completely reliable. I have had 7 AKs over the years, and have not had a single malfunction. The ones I abused the most were my first ones, which were both bottom-of-the-barrel Romanian AKs that I would run dry and put a case of ammo through between cleanings. They always ran without a hitch. I have had low end AKs and high end, but they have all been the same reliability-wise, which is to say perfect.
I have not seen this with the ARs I have had experience with. There does seem to be a difference in the reliability between the top tier and bottom tier ARs. It seems to me that it takes a top tier AR to approach the reliability of even a bottom tier AK, but that even so, the AR must be kept lubricated to stay reliable, whereas the AK does not require this.
The ARs I have owned have been pretty good rifles, but would have an occasional stoppage now and then. They needed to be kept lubed, and would start to experience more stoppages if they were ever ran very dry. If your purpose for owning the rifle doesn't entail having to continually use it under harsh conditions with the possibility of not always having lubricant available, it probably isn't a big issue though.
I liked the AR because it had better sights, better accuracy, easier to mount optics, and easier to change mags. I liked the AK because it was more reliable and did not require any cleaning or any upkeep whatsoever to stay completely reliable.
Of the two, I believe the AR design to be the best rifle for range use, police use, and for a military that has plenty of logistical support and is mostly engaged in police actions and peacekeeping. I believe the AK to be the best for 3rd world conditions, survival in harsh conditions and with limited supplies and cleaning/maintenance opportunities.
My experience with the AK versus the ARs is that my AKs have all been completely reliable. I have had 7 AKs over the years, and have not had a single malfunction. The ones I abused the most were my first ones, which were both bottom-of-the-barrel Romanian AKs that I would run dry and put a case of ammo through between cleanings. They always ran without a hitch. I have had low end AKs and high end, but they have all been the same reliability-wise, which is to say perfect.
I have not seen this with the ARs I have had experience with. There does seem to be a difference in the reliability between the top tier and bottom tier ARs. It seems to me that it takes a top tier AR to approach the reliability of even a bottom tier AK, but that even so, the AR must be kept lubricated to stay reliable, whereas the AK does not require this.
The ARs I have owned have been pretty good rifles, but would have an occasional stoppage now and then. They needed to be kept lubed, and would start to experience more stoppages if they were ever ran very dry. If your purpose for owning the rifle doesn't entail having to continually use it under harsh conditions with the possibility of not always having lubricant available, it probably isn't a big issue though.
I liked the AR because it had better sights, better accuracy, easier to mount optics, and easier to change mags. I liked the AK because it was more reliable and did not require any cleaning or any upkeep whatsoever to stay completely reliable.
Of the two, I believe the AR design to be the best rifle for range use, police use, and for a military that has plenty of logistical support and is mostly engaged in police actions and peacekeeping. I believe the AK to be the best for 3rd world conditions, survival in harsh conditions and with limited supplies and cleaning/maintenance opportunities.
