my history professor "who has a doctor degree and not just a wahoo lol" said that in his opinion the AR platform is slightly better but it is meant for professional soldiers that at the end of the day would clean their gun before cleaning themselves, and the AK was a rifle that if it got dirt in the action that shooting it would actually clean it due to the loose tolerances, and that it does not need to be cleaned no where near as often and the takedown and parts are much easier to work with. the ak is a weapon that could be buried for a year picked up fired and it is meant for more everyday people without real military training and not professionals so the way that the AK style rifle was made suits this role better than the AR. He said they are almost equally as good but they suit their roles in which they are used today perfectly.

 

dont kill me but i couldnt argue anything that he said in that point and was somewhat amazed lol, i just had to share.

:thsmiley_deadhorse:

 

http://madogre.com/?p=174

 

People lose sight of the whole point of an assault rifle. Sure, the AR is more accurate but the whole idea of an assault rifle isnt to pick people off at 700 meters. I'de rather it go bang. 300 meters, which the AK can do, is well beyond where most engagements take place and can still do man sized targets at 300 meters. Part of the innacuracy ledgend is because nobody knows how to shoot irons anymore, plus they are chunky irons with short sight radius so its not %100 on the rifles mechanical abilities...Also, I dont care if the AR15 is reliable if you keep it clean. In combat situations that isnt always an option, especially with something that is somewhat complex and prone to excessive fouling.

 

Also, they do not have loose tolerances. They have loose clearences. There is a difference and the clearences is what makes it run. If the tolerances were loose and the clearences werent the parts could potentially not even fit, at all.

 

That being said, read the above link. I cant believe this has been brought up again lol

not that silly article again

im not saying one is better or not im posting an extremely well worded argument from someone that does not partake in shooting but knows from real world history in which he is an educator. this is an situational example of where one is better than the other and vice versa

If you read this book:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Gun-C-J-Chivers/dp/0743270762

 

You will then know the "real world history" and know both the "real world history" and the shooting aspect. It is a super awesome book that I think any firearm enthusiast should read. At the end of it, you will absolutely dispise american arms technology from the garand to current. Everything was messed up.

 

Whoops, i'm glennp. posted again under wrong account again lol

as Glenn said.. if I am going to shoot something hundreds of yards away.. I am going to a 308 round.. or something similar..

 

so with that said.. for me.. comparing the AK to the AR is going to be at short to medium range..

 

the AR is more accurate.. but for me.. it is man sized COM targets.. and they both do that well..

reliability.. I have been able to get my ARs to fail.. but yet I have yet to see a single failure from my AK rifles..

 

so since reliability is higher on the AK and the accuracy between the two is moot for me.. I lean towards the AK platform.. since it does what I need it to do and does it more reliably..

And just to elaborate a little bit on my prior post just so im not immediatly flamed about being "un-patriotic".

 

It all started with the Garand. It was originaly going to be in .276 pederson. Whats the significance in that? Well, very early on we were already adopting a semi automatic rifle and as we all know that in itself was revolutionary. But what about the round? .276 was somewhat of a "intermediate" round, which is part of what defines an assault rifle. It was beggining to morph that way, with a semi auto rifle and an intermediate round all that was left was magazines and select fire. But what did we do? We demanded we chamber it in good 'ol 30-06. 30-06 is a great round, but it is quite overkill for a standard arm. So while we had a very early (although small) start at an assault rifle before anyone else, we killed it with stupidity.

 

OK, so then in 1943 the soviets design the m43 round, 7.62x39, a true assault rifle intermediate round and then had thousands of people on a base start developing an assault rifle. After hundreds of different designs, hundreds of trials, refinements etc, the AK47 was chosen and adopted in 1947 after much careful consideration and testing. Bam, its 1947 and they have an assault rifle, the T1 ak47.

 

Fast foward to 1957, TEN years AFTER an assault rifle has been developed and introduced by the enemy, and what do we do? We decide we need a new rifle. Its about time! OK, so what do we do? We waste tons of time effort and resources on the M14. Great rifle, but its a DINOSAUR at this point as far as standard issue infantry rifles go. We are 10 years behind the soviets and what do we do? we create another outdated rifle, it was outdated before it was even produced. Stupidity.

 

This leads to the M16 tobacle in vietnam. We see the north has AK47s. Oh wow! Great idea! Whoops, took 20 years for us to notice that its a good idea and we finally realize that maybe its not such a bad idea afterall. So what happens? We panic and knee-jerk. WE NEED AS ASSAULT RIFLE, NOW! Whats out there? Well, the AR-15 was pretty much it. So without nearly the amount of testing that was neccisary, we adopt it as a stop-gap panic impulse buy and send them to vietnam because that all we had. Of course, the outdated dinosaur M14 was better, not that we cared. Yes, I know that the new M16s are a million times better than the vietnam ones, although thats not saying much. A rubber band gun is better than the vietnam M16s. Regardless, our lack of care starting as early as the Garand is what killed alot of our men in Vietnam with the M16.

 

If we hadnt been stupid and started thinking about assault rifles in the 40's when the soviets did, we would have had a much better platform...and it could have started as early as the garand but we totally shot that down....

 

Now you know the history...

/endrant

ummm... seeing as how the soviets looked at the german stg 44 for their concept idea of the AK and it wasnt this amazing gift idea from god yes

my point = this

there are different roles for both rifles and i fail to see who u fail to see this?

ummm... seeing as how the soviets looked at the german stg 44 for their concept idea of the AK and it wasnt this amazing gift idea from god

 

Doesnt matter where the idea came from. Even if the idea came from the garand in the 1930's, they still had an assault rifle in 1947 and we didnt. If you are trying to pick out ommited details from my post I'de be glad to include:

 

"The germans kicked both the americans and soviets asses and had an assault rifle fielded in 1943, and the americans still didnt wake up and smell the roses untill they got shot at in vietnam by AK47s"

not arguing that either dont matter when they came about im stating the opinion that was stated to me.

dont matter whos was first or not right now matters about functionality.

and what your saying is if our military had AK's we would be doing better?>>??? really?

the military had to undergo investigations because of so many headshots that were reported as distances to make sure they werent executions

ummm... seeing as how the soviets looked at the german stg 44 for their concept idea of the AK and it wasnt this amazing gift idea from god yes

my point = this

there are different roles for both rifles and i fail to see who u fail to see this?

 

AR has range and accuracy

AK has reliability and power

 

I think you can sum up all the lengthy AK VS AR arguments up into those two simple statements..

so which is more important to you..

range and accuracy don't mean anything to me if your gun is broken.. so with that in consideration.. if I needed to bet my life on ONE gun.. it would be the AK.. because I know without question EVERY time I pull the trigger it will work.. and with that said.. people down play the AKs accuracy a LOT.. for a COM man sized target weapon.. as in battle weapon.. it is PLENTY accurate..

and what your saying is if our military had AK's we would be doing better?>>??? really?

 

Yes, especially if we had them in Vietnam. Again, I urge you to read that book. If we had the AK in vietnam (which I realise wasnt an option due to political climates) there would be alot more vietnam vets around...

 

 

the military had to undergo investigations because of so many headshots that were reported as distances to make sure they werent executions

 

Please provide factual evidence for this. There were reports in Vietnam of the M16 blowing up entire torsos and such at pretty long ranges, but those reports were slightly....tampered to say the least. Funny how all the official correspondence from Vietnam showed glowing reviews of the M16 and its "incredible" power reliability and accuracy, but we all know that it wasnt so.

:thsmiley_deadhorse:

 

http://madogre.com/?p=174

 

People lose sight of the whole point of an assault rifle. Sure, the AR is more accurate but the whole idea of an assault rifle isnt to pick people off at 700 meters. I'de rather it go bang. 300 meters, which the AK can do, is well beyond where most engagements take place and can still do man sized targets at 300 meters. Part of the innacuracy ledgend is because nobody knows how to shoot irons anymore, plus they are chunky irons with short sight radius so its not %100 on the rifles mechanical abilities...Also, I dont care if the AR15 is reliable if you keep it clean. In combat situations that isnt always an option, especially with something that is somewhat complex and prone to excessive fouling.

 

Also, they do not have loose tolerances. They have loose clearences. There is a difference and the clearences is what makes it run. If the tolerances were loose and the clearences werent the parts could potentially not even fit, at all.

 

That being said, read the above link. I cant believe this has been brought up again lol

 

That article is such outdated crap...

 

1. Yes, there were issues with the original M-16... That's what the Army got when it rushed it into use before it was readied for combat. Even the AK-47 went through a bunch of iterations until arriving at its final configuration as the AKM. The first 'true' M-16 was the M-16A2 variant, and that was damned reliable.

 

2. US Soldiers shoot their stuff a lot. Given all the training US Soldier get, their weapons tend to be refurbed and used quite often. Old rifles break down... often. Old machine guns break down... often. After while the guns wear themselves to malfunction and failure. It's why the M-16s, M-4s, and M249s have had a boatload of issues in recent conflicts. Soldiers are issued guns that saw a lot of trigger time, and they tend to fail more often. This is a fault of logistics and stockpiling more than anything else.

 

3. M-16s are not machine guns... they were never designed for sustained full-auto fire and when used in this capacity, will fail. Shoot them long enough in this mode of fire, and two things will happen... your chamber will get so hot that it will cook off rounds on its own, and your gas tube will eventually burst. But this is after a few hundred rounds in immediate succession. We're talking mag dump after mag dump with no breaks between firing. Even an AK will eventually burst into flames and warp it's barrel rendering it pretty much useless. Full auto and burst fire have their usefulness... but are not meant to be used full time.

 

4. Magazines... probably the biggest source of failure in this weapon system... and a result of weak springs that were made from crappy materials or have simply worn out. Like all wear items, magazines and their subsequent components need to be replaced. Whether it's for an M-16, AKM, 1911, etc.

 

All in all, every-time there is a story on the M-4 and M-16 failing in combat, it's usually due to the above issues, or not substantiated at all. The folks at Picatinny Arsenal do an awesome job keeping up with any of the issues that the system has and working on solutions. Bottom line: when shooting with quality magazines, ammunition, and proper use, this platform will serve its users quite well in almost all combat environments.

 

Heck... BCM even has a rifle out in the wild called "Filthy-14" which has almost 50,000 rounds through it on the original barrel and bolt carrier. Only issues it had were broken bolt lugs at 16k, and worn extractor and action springs. All wear items.

If you read this book:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Gun-C-J-Chivers/dp/0743270762

 

You will then know the "real world history" and know both the "real world history" and the shooting aspect. It is a super awesome book that I think any firearm enthusiast should read. At the end of it, you will absolutely dispise american arms technology from the garand to current. Everything was messed up.

 

Whoops, i'm glennp. posted again under wrong account again lol

 

Chivers also exonerated the M-16 platform in that book, echoing my sentiments in the above post.

I've settled this question long time ago by having an NJ Legal variant of both rifles.

That article is such outdated crap...

 

1. Yes, there were issues with the original M-16... That's what the Army got when it rushed it into use before it was readied for combat. Well as I said, if they realised this sooner, like the soviets/germans had it wouldnt be a problem.

Even the AK-47 went through a bunch of iterations until arriving at its final configuration as the AKM. The first 'true' M-16 was the M-16A2 variant, and that was damned reliable.

 

2. US Soldiers shoot their stuff a lot. Given all the training US Soldier get, their weapons tend to be refurbed and used quite often. Old rifles break down... often. Old machine guns break down... often. After while the guns wear themselves to malfunction and failure. It's why the M-16s, M-4s, and M249s have had a boatload of issues in recent conflicts. Soldiers are issued guns that saw a lot of trigger time, and they tend to fail more often. This is a fault of logistics and stockpiling more than anything else. And the AK47s out there being scooped up by our troops that are beat to hell with 1950's receivers arent fired alot or beaten?

 

3. M-16s are not machine guns... they were never designed for sustained full-auto fire and when used in this capacity, will fail. Shoot them long enough in this mode of fire, and two things will happen... your chamber will get so hot that it will cook off rounds on its own, and your gas tube will eventually burst. But this is after a few hundred rounds in immediate succession. We're talking mag dump after mag dump with no breaks between firing. Even an AK will eventually burst into flames and warp it's barrel rendering it pretty much useless. Full auto and burst fire have their usefulness... but are not meant to be used full time. Sure, never argued that point. But the AK will still outperform in that regard anyways, no bursting gas tubes or anything. And the barrel wont warp unless its dunked in cold water after, BTW

 

4. Magazines... probably the biggest source of failure in this weapon system... and a result of weak springs that were made from crappy materials or have simply worn out. Like all wear items, magazines and their subsequent components need to be replaced. Whether it's for an M-16, AKM, 1911, etc. And the AK wins in the mag department too, with milled steel feed lips vs stamped aluminum.

All in all, every-time there is a story on the M-4 and M-16 failing in combat, it's usually due to the above issues, or not substantiated at all. The folks at Picatinny Arsenal do an awesome job keeping up with any of the issues that the system has and working on solutions. Bottom line: when shooting with quality magazines, ammunition, and proper use, this platform will serve its users quite well in almost all combat environments.

 

Heck... BCM even has a rifle out in the wild called "Filthy-14" which has almost 50,000 rounds through it on the original barrel and bolt carrier. Only issues it had were broken bolt lugs at 16k, and worn extractor and action springs. All wear items.

I've settled this question long time ago by having an NJ Legal variant of both rifles.

 

I share your logic and personally subscribe to your method.

Fact of the matter is ARs are more reliable than most people give them credit for, and AKs are more accurate than most people give them credit for. AKs fail, and having an AR doesn't make you an instant sharpshooter.

 

Let it go... :thsmiley_deadhorse:

And everybody knows that if you put both in a safe together, the AK will bully the AR15

 

Also how is the article outdated crap?

 

Last I checked the standard AR15 still uses:

 

The stupid star shaped chamber

Tight clearences

Spring loaded ejector

Direct impingement

5.56mm

 

Among other things...

 

Regardless, i wasnt even arguing that stuff. Thats been gone over 10000 times. I was arguing the politics and development history. Everybody already knows that the AK is superior

Well as I said, if they realised this sooner, like the soviets/germans had it wouldnt be a problem.

 

Hindsight is 20/20, but this has no bearing on the reliability of the M-16 platform today.

 

And the AK47s out there being scooped up by our troops that are beat to hell with 1950's receivers arent fired alot or beaten?

 

Probably not. Especially given how often nations stockpile them and never use them. Russia buys them by the barrel full and sticks them in bunkers under the Ural mountains. Then there is the whole training issue: many of these nations training programs involve a couple of hundred rounds in basic training, followed by one or two mags a year afterwards. The rifles usually end up in the armory or dropped on the ground when the poor bastard was killed by a US Soldier with an M-16...

 

Sure, never argued that point. But the AK will still outperform in that regard anyways, no bursting gas tubes or anything. And the barrel wont warp unless its dunked in cold water after, BTW

 

Doubtful... I'd love to see someone shoot one that often without wearing asbestos gloves. Also, barrels will warp and flex regardless of being dunked in water. Especially if you shoot them till they're read hot. Chrome will flake off within the barrel lining as well and the rifling will just wear out quicker. There is a reason most machine guns have a BII that includes a spare barrel.

 

And the AK wins in the mag department too, with milled steel feed lips vs stamped aluminum.

 

They also make steel mags for the M-16 too... nothing new there. Steel mags

 

Not to mention the whole host of other platforms which use STANAG magazines and seem to work fine...

Hindsight is 20/20, but this has no bearing on the reliability of the M-16 platform today.

 

And I was arguing history, which would imply the past. Not that I think the m16 now is great, but it is better (not that thats saying much anwyays). Anything is better than the vietnam era rifles..

 

Probably not. Especially given how often nations stockpile them and never use them. Russia buys them by the barrel full and sticks them in bunkers under the Ural mountains. Then there is the whole training issue: many of these nations training programs involve a couple of hundred rounds in basic training, followed by one or two mags a year afterwards. The rifles usually end up in the armory or dropped on the ground when the poor bastard was killed by a US Soldier with an M-16...

 

It would be a stretch to say the an M16 recieves more abuse than a an AK with a shovel handle as a stock and mismatched parts thats been fired and not cleaned with corrosive ammo for 50 years.

 

Doubtful... I'd love to see someone shoot one that often without wearing asbestos gloves. Also, barrels will warp and flex regardless of being dunked in water. Especially if you shoot them till they're read hot. Chrome will flake off within the barrel lining as well and the rifling will just wear out quicker. There is a reason most machine guns have a BII that includes a spare barrel.

 

Yeah, both guns will heat up to the point of not being able to hold it. Barrels will glow red and cool down without warping, even M16 barrels. Unless you are doing something else to them they will both perform well in that aspect, although you wont pop a tube on the AK. And of course as you said sustained fire isnt their point, but neither are alot of the other pro-m16 arguments such as pinpoint accuracy at 700 meters or whatever.

 

They also make steel mags for the M-16 too... nothing new there. Steel mags

 

Not to mention the whole host of other platforms which use STANAG magazines and seem to work fine...

 

They are still much much much thinner and more flimsy than the AK mags.

 

 

 

 

 

And I will take this opportunity to bow out of the argument. I have argued this same damn thing time and time again and the only point I really stayed in the thread for was to argue the historical aspects and development but that kind of drifted off.

And I was arguing history, which would imply the past. Not that I think the m16 now is great, but it is better (not that thats saying much anwyays). Anything is better than the vietnam era rifles..

 

History is history, if you're gonna get into it like the OP did, then he is correct. The M-16 is a soldiers weapon, it's designed to be accurate and to put multiple rounds on target. In the hands of properly trained fighting men and women, it's won quite a few victories, even during it's most problematic days in Vietnam to current operations overseas.

 

As for what you think about the current M-16, that's an opinion... and you know what folks say about those...

 

Fact of the matter is, it's a proven weapons platform that had a troubled past. When properly maintained and equipped, it will shoot anytime and anywhere.

 

It would be a stretch to say the an M16 recieves more abuse than a an AK with a shovel handle as a stock and mismatched parts thats been fired and not cleaned with corrosive ammo for 50 years.

 

Not really. M-16s go from one crop of troops to the next and get a great deal of rounds through them before they ever make it to the battlefield. It's kinda part of the training that combat troops receive in the US military (which is why they tend to do a good job killing insurgents with AKMs). So yeah, I'd say they get a lot more wear than something that sat in some stockpile for 20 years.

 

Yeah, both guns will heat up to the point of not being able to hold it. Barrels will glow red and cool down without warping, even M16 barrels. Unless you are doing something else to them they will both perform well in that aspect, although you wont pop a tube on the AK. And of course as you said sustained fire isnt their point, but neither are alot of the other pro-m16 arguments such as pinpoint accuracy at 700 meters or whatever.

 

Right. But who ever shoots that much full-auto from one rifle in a combat situation?

 

They are still much much much thinner and more flimsy than the AK mags.

 

Flimsiness doesn't really affect performance all that much, unless you're running them over with pickup trucks... But most mag issues are tied to the spring/follower, not so much the feed lips. Again... all issues solved by improvements in materials. For ex: going from aluminum to steel. Or even polymers.

 

And I will take this opportunity to bow out of the argument. I have argued this same damn thing time and time again and the only point I really stayed in the thread for was to argue the historical aspects and development but that kind of drifted off.

 

That's fine. But don't simply stop at the M-16 sucked in Vietnam, therefor it sucked in every conflict ever since. Especially when evidence exists to the contrary.

the whole "it runs great... when properly maintained" is kind of a silly argument... most machines run well when properly maintained.. I ran my AR next to my AK... range trip after range trip after range trip.. till the AR bolt got so dirty it was dragging and would not cycle right.. the reality is ARs are great.. but they require maintenance.. since no one here is "using the gun in combat" it is easy to say oh I will just keep up with it.. and that's all well and good.. the AK on the other hand.. would continue to run a thousand times more without ANY cleaning.. the gun just works EVERY time.. you simple can not say "an AR is JUST as reliable as an AK (as long as you routinely clean and maintain it)" because when you ad little qualifying statements at the end it makes it not an even comparison.. the AK.. is without question.. more durable.. the AR is without question more accurate.. as has been said a million times.. do you want an accurate gun that shoots farther that requires lubrication cleaning and maintenance? or do you want a gun throwing a more powerful round at a shorter range that will work long after humans no longer inhabit the earth? that is the only fair comparison.. I have a feeling MOST ARs here are babied.. are cleaned after every range trip.. I have pushed mine to fail.. to see the limitations of the platform.. I can tell you while the gun was still mechanically sound it didn't take all that much dirt and abuse to get it to fail.. accurate? YES reliable? YES.. but ONLY if you are nuts about upkeep.. definitely NOT as reliable or durable as my AK...

Fact of the matter is ARs are more reliable than most people give them credit for, and AKs are more accurate than most people give them credit for. AKs fail, and having an AR doesn't make you an instant sharpshooter.

 

Let it go... :thsmiley_deadhorse:

This. An AR is reliable enough for what 99% of us use it for, and an AK is more accurate than 99% of us are.

 

Thread should have ended with Caine's post.

Just how many rounds does one need to be able to shoot before maintanence. If EVER is your answer buy an AK. The consript is what was in mind in its design. If reasonable is your answer and you care about all the advantages the AR platform offers, then go AR. Two of the biggest deal breakers for me in an AK platform is the same deal breaker for the M1A and the FAL. I detest hinged mag systems and weapons that mounting optics are a pita for...... I admit all my AR's are top tier but all have been absolutely reliable. Some that I own are specifically designed and tested to run about 2000 roounds supressed with no cleaning or lube. That is reliable enough for me. The fact that its a solid .6 moa gun and that I can mount whatever I want to it with ease is all a bonus! My other ar has a number of field reports of super high reliability. Travis Hailey reportedly has 90k+ rounds through his on the same barrel and bolt. So my answer is obviously cake and eat it too And in my mind that can be done on the AR platform. On more thing thats a deal breaker, no BHO on the ak

the whole "it runs great... when properly maintained" is kind of a silly argument... most machines run well when properly maintained.. I ran my AR next to my AK... range trip after range trip after range trip.. till the AR bolt got so dirty it was dragging and would not cycle right.. the reality is ARs are great.. but they require maintenance.. since no one here is "using the gun in combat" it is easy to say oh I will just keep up with it.. and that's all well and good.. the AK on the other hand.. would continue to run a thousand times more without ANY cleaning.. the gun just works EVERY time.. you simple can not say "an AR is JUST as reliable as an AK (as long as you routinely clean and maintain it)" because when you ad little qualifying statements at the end it makes it not an even comparison.. the AK.. is without question.. more durable.. the AR is without question more accurate.. as has been said a million times.. do you want an accurate gun that shoots farther that requires lubrication cleaning and maintenance? or do you want a gun throwing a more powerful round at a shorter range that will work long after humans no longer inhabit the earth? that is the only fair comparison.. I have a feeling MOST ARs here are babied.. are cleaned after every range trip.. I have pushed mine to fail.. to see the limitations of the platform.. I can tell you while the gun was still mechanically sound it didn't take all that much dirt and abuse to get it to fail.. accurate? YES reliable? YES.. but ONLY if you are nuts about upkeep.. definitely NOT as reliable or durable as my AK...

 

This mimics the professor's arguments but reaches an opposite conclusion. If the AR is more accurate but needs more tender loving care, it makes it more suitable for the civilian than the soldier. It's not like you go fight wars from 9 to 5 and then go home to eat dinner and clean your gun. Since I'm not going to be in combat, I'm going to buy an AR.

Fact of the matter is, it's a proven weapons platform that had a troubled past. When properly maintained and equipped, it will shoot anytime and anywhere.

 

I carried a M16 in the field in the butthole of the earth and NEVER found it to be reliable(recently in Afghan and Iraq and other places not Vietnam). It is underpowered and requires high maintenance and is not suitable for the sandy rugged environments that they are employed. The 5.56 is a great round if you want to take out taliban midgets or rabid chipmunks but it lacks stopping power. The platform is not reliable enough. I am actually disturbed that the govt keeps this platform, as I have seen first hand the effects of what happens when it has its little issues that haven't been worked out in 40yrs, but the media reports that it has. I have had one fail on me at the worst possible situation and have seen others fail catastrophically in the same situation. Now before I hear that "oh my AR runs perfectly after thousands of rounds at CR under the covered range bays with the best ammo and lubricants possible," think about this. In real life, those arent even remotely reasonable environments. In Iraq you could always tell a new guy because his rifle was still black. Over time, no matter how much you scrub your rifle turns brown from the moon dust sand over there. Watch the news and you will notice. Also how about the lack of cleaning kits STILL at FOB's. This is a common occurrence this day and age believe it or not. So unless you have carried one in the field and had your life depend on it, your opinions are biased and you are seeing the world through a guilded cage. You are living in Hamptons high life and haven't been down to the ghetto at all. I believe that the M16 is the biggest POS known to man. The only soldiers that like it are the ones that never shot anything else before they enlisted. Been there done that and believe me many troops hate the rifle because of the lack of reliability and stopping power. I carried a 14 whenever possible and there is a reason they are pulling 14's out of the armories and issuing them now. There is a reason an AR WILL NEVER BE IN MY COLLECTION

 

Steps off soap box

I've owned both, and had BOTH fail me.

 

http://njgunforums.com/forum/index.php?/topic/28885-wts-gp75-ak-varient/

 

I believe everyone should own both, as you never know what might be in your hands if a real SHTF scenario and a choose might not be available.

Along with his extensive credentials, knowing a few that are friends with Mike Pannone, his credibility is secured in my mind....

 

http://www.defensereview.com/the-big-m4-myth-fouling-caused-by-the-direct-impingement-gas-system-makes-the-m4-unreliable/

I've owned both, and had BOTH fail me.

 

http://njgunforums.com/forum/index.php?/topic/28885-wts-gp75-ak-varient/

What? An AK failed? Impossible!!

 

I guess if you want a reliable AK, the trick is to NOT transfer one thru Jet Agent (go ahead, give me all the -1's you want.)