The reliability of the AR-15 vs. the AK-47 designs are babbled about routinely. Here is the only factor that matters.
Any mechanism can break or become fouled to a point that it ceases to function. Kalashnikov’s famed design has a deserved reputation for reliability but it is just a gas-operated, self-loading small arm and it has more in common with the AR-15 than differences.
While certainly not a definitive test, these videos are enlightening:
I guess not even the AK is flawless and the AR just might work under harsh conditions. Go figure!
Advertisement
ben gorilya
Dec 01, 2010 @ 08:55:38
wow.all this time i thought it was the ak series of rifles that were the king of dust, mud and general neglect.
either their production standards really fell or the ar series finally has worked out all its past kinks.
great post. very educational.
Ted Sames
Dec 02, 2010 @ 12:53:36
Without getting into great detail in an engineering level, the AR-15/M-16 does has many flaws. There are two great flaws with this system: 1st, the magazine was never meant to be extremely strong but as a lightweight disposable item. Our American-military mindset is that is not part of the rifle and can be abused. Other countries recognize that the mag is extremely important and they make them very strong with good steel. The 2nd point is that the rifle shoots like a target rifle with high tolerances. The M-16 needs to be cleaned and well lubed with quality oils. There are many other points that I will not mention. The sights are overly complicated and require many hours of instruction to fully understand them.
The AK-47 is made loose to tolerate 3rd world rough handling and lack of care. They designed this rifle as an assault rifle…engaging targets from 0 to 200 meters at the very maximum. The AK-47 was designed to be operated by lower educated and poorly trained troops. Most are not pin-point accurate. Groupings are very inconsistent. There are mechanical reasons for this. Case in point: Safety is not really an important issue so the safety lever is less ergonomic than the M-16….the Soviets designed it that way…they don’t want heir troops messing with the safety all the time…it’s either “on” when nothing is happening or “off” when in combat. The sights are rugged and simple and a child can understand the use of them within minutes. They are a little bit more practical than Americans. I believe the M-16/M-4 is perfect for police work but a real combat weapon should be selected for the military.
I asked my Israeli-born friend who saw real combat in the 1980s about this…. He said, “When we were able, we selected the Gailil over the M-16 when we were actually in dessert combat because of the reliability. In garrison duty, we selected the M-16 because it was lightweight and comfortable to carry”. The Galil is a product improvement over the AK-47.
Tyler
Aug 03, 2011 @ 11:39:15
you need a real arsenal ak, not a crappy wasr-10 clone or something. Obviously the ar will beat the ak clone.
John M. Buol Jr.
Aug 04, 2011 @ 10:12:43
Possibly, but if any rifle, be it a “real arsenal” Kalashnikov or otherwise, is so full of debris as to impede the movement of internal parts it will cease to function.
The AK has a deserved reputation for reliability but it still is a mechanical device that can fail.