Just like the AR-15/M16, Kalashnikov’s famed AK-47 experienced initial reliability problems. One difference was the Soviets weren’t forced into fielding these initial design problems during Viet Nam. Consider if these initial, flawed copies of Kalashnikov’s design had been forced into combat instead of being rejected at the factory.
Sign up for our free weekly newsletter for more reviews.

Early production AK-47s were broken down into two distinct batch types – the version from 1948 and the version succeeding these from 1952. However, the early forms – with their stamped sheet metal receivers – proved inherently flawed, mainly due to the sheet-metal stamping technology found in throughout Russia at the time leading many production AK-47s to be rejected right at the factory. This inevitably forced the use of a machined receiver (from solid steel) instead and delayed large-scale entry of the assault rifle until the mid-1950s. The machined process covered AK-47 production from 1951 to 1959 and led to an increase in overall weight of the weapon. However, this method of manufacture itself was proving to be too expensive in the realm of Soviet mass production efforts and, thusly, forced a revision of the AK-47 family. The resulting effort went on to become the AKM (M= “Modernized”) which reverted construction of the assault rifle back to its stamped steel roots – the process refined after much study of German wartime methods – producing a decidedly cheaper and lighter rifle. A new muzzle installment (with a noted slant) was introduced to combat muzzle climb. Several other subtle modifications were also introduced and the AKM was further branched to become the AKMS which introduced a folding metal buttstock – a compact feature respected by paratroopers and vehicle crews alike. One identifying feature of the AKM series versus the AK-47 was its shortened “dimple” imprint above the magazine feed – the AK-47 sported a longer dimple there. Overall AK-47 production spanned from 1949 to 1975 with involved facilities (among others) being the famed Izhevsk and Tula state arsenals.
There were many difficulties during the initial phase of AK-47 production. The first production models had stamped sheet metal receivers. Difficulties were encountered in welding the guide and ejector rails, causing high rejection rates. Instead of halting production, a heavy machined receiver was substituted for the sheet metal receiver. This was a more costly process, but the use of machined receivers accelerated production as tooling and labor for the earlier Mosin–Nagant rifle’s machined receiver were easily adapted. Partly because of these problems, the Soviets were not able to distribute large numbers of the new rifle to soldiers until 1956. During this time, production of the interim SKS rifle continued.
Source: Poyer, Joe (1 January 2006). The AK-47 and AK-74 Kalashnikov Rifles and Their Variations: A Shooter’s and Collector’s Guide. North Cape Publications. ISBN 978-1-882391-41-7.
Ted Sames II
Mar 08, 2015 @ 11:09:57
Another problem: Sand and mud enters directly into the gas port holes. It then abrades/clogs the attached piston and tube. I have seen sand/mud tests pitting M-16 with AK-47 side by side and the M-16 wins every time. The other problem is bbl/action harmonics: Most AKs fire 2 distinct groups because of this problem. There’s a correlation between this and the way the rounds are slacked–either the left side or the right side. This is why you never see AKs in competition matches that require any type of precision. It still works according to their fighting doctrines. I purchased a number of ‘high quality’ AKs and never found them to be accurate enough for my tastes. Most people are happy and contented with spraying bullets on a berm. All my weapons are used for hunting and I do respect the animal…I require an accurate one shot for a clean kill. Speer makes a heavy jacket 64gr .224″ spritzer bullet just for hunting. The Germans knew this years ago and always had such a bullet for hunting their Roe Deer. This allows a 5.56mm to be used for hunting with amazing results…the bullet mushrooms instead of exploding on the hide or the shoulder bone.
LikeLike
John M. Buol Jr.
Mar 08, 2015 @ 13:12:32
Sounds like good info and advice to me. Just don’t tell my friends from Finland. They’re already mad at me.
LikeLike
AR15 vs. AK47: Reliability Under Harsh Conditions | Firearm User Network
Mar 31, 2015 @ 08:44:36
Yoda
Aug 26, 2015 @ 17:50:32
The difference of course being that once an AR is compromised with debris it’s not easily remedied unless you field strip and clean it due to lack of area around the fire control group for debris. AK’s generally only require you remove the topcover and dump out the debris. Unless of course you heavily lube the things and debris sticks to the lube everywhere. I have both AR’s and AK’s just in case no one ever invents a rifle as reliable as an AK and as accurate as an AR. The SCAR is to ugly for a normal person to love. So it seems like a compromise owning both but in reality, it is. I’ve watched enough reliability and torture tests from both along with having run my share of ammo through each.
LikeLike
John M. Buol Jr.
Aug 26, 2015 @ 18:28:04
>> AK’s generally only require you remove the top cover and dump out the debris.
In other words, field stripping it.
LikeLike
Yoda
Aug 27, 2015 @ 12:43:48
Literally, you can take the topcover off an AK, flip it over to dump out loose sand and then run it again. That’s not field stripping as you can still fire the weapon even without the topcover. Now if mud or large debris is actually in the system- field stripping for safety’s sake isn’t a bad idea. It’s not invincible, a small rock could ruin your life if it’s in the bore- so that goes withouts saying. I used to be big into offroading, mainly quads and what not. Always carried an AK strapped to the back and it would get filthy- I mean filthy. One thing I learned is use minimal lube on AK’s as possible, maybe the rails or a drop on the bolt stem- nothing more- otherwise the lube attracts sand. However even with that, I’ve seen few failures. I also used to carry around an old Colt Sporter that after the 94′ ban expired, I had it outfitted with a collapsible stock and carbine length barrel. The rifle came from the factory with a highly polished chromed bolt/carrier group- that rifle was very reliable as well. It seemed to actually perform worse if I added to much lube after it got caked with debris, probably for the same reasons that AK’s don’t do that well with lube once they attract dirt. Overall, though the AK’s were more reliable but that little AR I had worked pretty good to. Plus the AR was a little lighter with just a CAR stock, M4 handguards and an old A2 upper.
You mentioned about the production changes of the Type I, II, and III AK’s which eventually settled out to Type III milled and AKM stamped once they got the metallurgy and production issues corrected. The teething issues on the early stamped guns was a combination of production variances, metallurgy, and design. It wasn’t till they re-introduced the stamped receiver in the AKM after the Type III’s were found to be expensive for production that they learned how to properly recesses the sheetmetal direclty into a bevel cut out on the trunnion rivet holes itself. The rivets simply kept the sheetmetal from backing out of the trunnion recesses rather than actually holding the trunnion in place. That is why they get 80K-100K rounds out of an AK before actually fails, generally right at the top of the front trunnion.
Here is a good article about this, Henderson Defense out of Nevada runs machinegun rentals and was getting on average 80K rounds plus out of cheap WASR’s. Now granted the barrels are shot out but hell, it will still hold a pie plate sized group at 25 yards. That says a lot about the durability of the weapons themselves. Down side though with AK’s is that you can’t easily change the main components but I guess if you get a cheap AK and it lasts 75K rounds or more- you probably got your money back and then some.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/06/03/how-many-rounds-can-an-ak-fire-before-it-breaks-down/
LikeLike
John M. Buol Jr.
Aug 27, 2015 @ 17:10:54
>> Literally, you can take the topcover off an AK, flip it over to dump out loose sand and then run it again. That’s not field stripping as you can still fire the weapon even without the topcover.
True. It’s bigger and more open, making it easier and faster to clean (or shake) out. This also might – possibly – make it easier for debris to get in.
>> I used to be big into offroading, mainly quads and what not. Always carried an AK strapped to the back and it would get filthy- I mean filthy.
This sounds like a good time!
>> [The Colt Sporter] seemed to actually perform worse if I added too much lube after it got caked with debris, probably for the same reasons that AK’s don’t do that well with lube once they attract dirt.
My experience with military personnel is they initially under lubricate, usually because drill sergeant/NCOIC said it had to “really clean.” When they finally realize a bone-dry firearm might experience stoppages, the large squirt bottle of CLP comes out and parts are hosed down. Naturally, some debris or dirt from the environment might come into contact with the firearm during shooting, so naturally, it’s “because CLP attracts sand/dirt.”
https://firearmusernetwork.com/put-oil-on-it/
If a mechanical device becomes caked in mud or filled with debris it might be prudent to wipe it off and relubricate the moving parts.
>> You mentioned about the production changes of the Type I, II, and III AK’s which eventually settled out to Type III milled and AKM stamped once they got the metallurgy and production issues corrected. The teething issues on the early stamped guns was a combination of production variances, metallurgy, and design.
And I mention this only show that even the fabulously reliable AK with it’s earned and deserved reputation for reliability had some problems when first released. It would be interesting to visit an alternate universe and hear gun owner’s opinions on the Kalashnikov where these post-prototype, first production AKs had been immediately forced into military service, say, in Vietnam.
LikeLike
John M. Buol Jr.
Aug 27, 2015 @ 20:26:23
That’s cool. If you want to write this up I’ll be glad to post it here. Email sent.
LikeLike
Joe
Apr 20, 2019 @ 15:41:12
But …but…but AKs never fail.
British YPG fighter in action against ISIS in Syria:
LikeLiked by 1 person
John M. Buol Jr.
Apr 20, 2019 @ 17:11:12
Never a failure ever…
LikeLike