Is the AK Overrated?

**Carnes** · December 2nd, 2007, 05:26 AM

Don't get me wrong, I am well aware that the AK is an exceptionally reliable rifle. I just sometimes get the impression that people give the weapon more credit than it is due.

Reasons:

1. The basic design is not conducive to maintaining a firing grip at all times. A practical low-ready stance for the AK requires that a right-handed person keeps the non-firing hand over the top of the receiver, ready to manipulate the safety and/or bolt. While this technique is functional, it is awkward and not nearly as practical as what is offered by other platforms.

2. It seems that people tend to think that AKs can be totally abused and still function normally... I have found that this is not true. I have personally witnessed the firring of AK's by numerous company sized elements. During these ranges we have had to remove close to 3% of the rifles from the range due to critical weapon failures.

I have to add the disclaimer that these weapons were NOT well maintained. Some of the weapons were in a deplorable condition, due to a complete lack of simple maintenance.

The reason I wonder if the weapon is overrated is that the soldiers seemed to think that the AK was neigh invulnerable. I have found that this is clearly not the case. And I hope that no one here falls into the myth that their AK will always function.

Every weapon needs to be maintained. Any weapon that is not maintained runs an unacceptable risk of failure.

That being the case, I am inclined to think that the AK is overrated. A well maintained M4/16 seems to preform better than a well maintained AK. And since a poorly maintained AK does not preform well... I am left to wonder if the ubiquitous 'ultra-reliable' AK is just a bit overrated?

**Thekatar** · December 2nd, 2007, 06:12 AM

Originally Posted by Carnes

Don't get me wrong, I am well aware that the AK is an exceptionally reliable rifle. I just sometimes get the impression that people give the weapon more credit than it is due.

I added to your reputation for this post.

Yes, it's my experience that the AK is overrated - and I really like AK's.

People seem to get on one side or the other of the AK/AR pissing match - I like both, own both, shoot both. I have been in all AR carbine classes, all AK carbine classes and classes that were a mixture. I have a fair amount of personal experience with AK rifles. I have found your general observations in this post to be true. Let me take your list point by point:

The basic design is not conducive to maintaining a firing grip at all times. A practical low-ready stance for the AK requires that a right-handed person keeps the non-firing hand over the top of the receiver, ready to manipulate the safety and/or bolt. While this technique is functional, it is awkward and not nearly as practical as what is offered by other platforms.

Training mitigates most of this. The operator should cant the rifle inboard and sweep their support hand back over the charging handle. The safety can be manipulated by the social finger of the firing hand. There are aftermarket safeties with additional leverage that allow you to sweep the safety off with the trigger finger. Believe me when I say that the AK can be run right along with the AR's - the only real disadvantage is during an emergency reload.

It seems that people tend to think that AKs can be totally abused and still function normally... I have found that this is not true. I have personally witnessed the firring of AK's by numerous company sized elements. During these ranges we have had to remove close to 3% of the rifles from the range due to critical weapon failures.

AK's are robust rifles, and I hear all the time from guys bragging about how they don't clean or lubricate them. That's just plain foolish. I have witnessed numerous malfunctions from AK's.

The reason I wonder if the weapon is overrated is that the soldiers seemed to think that the AK was neigh invulnerable. I have found that this is clearly not the case. And I hope that no one here falls into the myth that their AK will always function.

I think that Soldiers like to romanticize the weapons of their enemies.

Every weapon needs to be maintained. Any weapon that is not maintained runs an unacceptable risk of failure.

Agreed.

That being the case, I am inclined to think that the AK is overrated. A well maintained M4/16 seems to preform better than a well maintained AK. And since a poorly maintained AK does not preform well... I am left to wonder if the ubiquitous 'ultra-reliable' AK is just a bit overrated?

Their reliability is overrated. The M4/M16 is a very reliable system - it is not quite as robust, however.

I personally like the way the AK rifles point and shoulder. Malfunction clearance is much more simple than on the AR. It takes more training and effort to run one efficiently, but in the end it's always the singer, not the song.

**TonyF** · December 2nd, 2007, 06:56 AM

Originally Posted by Thekatar

I added to your reputation for this post.

Yes, it's my experience that the AK is overrated - and I really like AK's.

People seem to get on one side or the other of the AK/AR pissing match - I like both, own both, shoot both. I have been in all AR carbine classes, all AK carbine classes and classes that were a mixture. I have a fair amount of personal experience with AK rifles. I have found your general observations in this post to be true. Let me take your list point by point:

Training mitigates most of this. The operator should cant the rifle inboard and sweep their support hand back over the charging handle. The safety can be manipulated by the social finger of the firing hand. There are aftermarket safeties with additional leverage that allow you to sweep the safety off with the trigger finger. Believe me when I say that the AK can be run right along with the AR's - the only real disadvantage is during an emergency reload.

AK's are robust rifles, and I hear all the time from guys bragging about how they don't clean or lubricate them. That's just plain foolish. I have witnessed numerous malfunctions from AK's.

I think that Soldiers like to romanticize the weapons of their enemies.

Their reliability is overrated. The M4/M16 is a very reliable system - it is not quite as robust, however.

I personally like the way the AK rifles point and shoulder. Malfunction clearance is much more simple than on the AR. It takes more training and effort to run one efficiently, but in the end it's always the singer, not the song.

Agree on all accounts. The only thing I'd add is that it's more a matter of being misunderstood and that's why some overrate it.

**jon'76** · December 2nd, 2007, 07:57 AM

I agree to an extent. I feel overall the AK is more robust, but I feel it is usually rendered less so due to user negligence. If I had a choice I would take the AR, but due to funds I'll be picking up a yugo ak.

I agree it's the operator, not the firearm that matters.

**DaveM55** · December 2nd, 2007, 10:36 AM

I like both, have both and shoot both. But the FAL is still king.

IMHO, operating in the same dirty harsh environment, the AK should function longer than an AR because most AK's have looser tolerances.

**Jackal** · December 2nd, 2007, 10:48 AM

Originally Posted by Carnes

Don't get me wrong, I am well aware that the AK is an exceptionally reliable rifle. I just sometimes get the impression that people give the weapon more credit than it is due.

Reasons:

1. The basic design is not conducive to maintaining a firing grip at all times. A practical low-ready stance for the AK requires that a right-handed person keeps the non-firing hand over the top of the receiver, ready to manipulate the safety and/or bolt. While this technique is functional, it is awkward and not nearly as practical as what is offered by other platforms.

2. It seems that people tend to think that AKs can be totally abused and still function normally... I have found that this is not true. I have personally witnessed the firring of AK's by numerous company sized elements. During these ranges we have had to remove close to 3% of the rifles from the range due to critical weapon failures.

I have to add the disclaimer that these weapons were NOT well maintained. Some of the weapons were in a deplorable condition, due to a complete lack of simple maintenance.

The reason I wonder if the weapon is overrated is that the soldiers seemed to think that the AK was neigh invulnerable. I have found that this is clearly not the case. And I hope that no one here falls into the myth that their AK will always function.

Every weapon needs to be maintained. Any weapon that is not maintained runs an unacceptable risk of failure.

That being the case, I am inclined to think that the AK is overrated. A well maintained M4/16 seems to preform better than a well maintained AK. And since a poorly maintained AK does not preform well... I am left to wonder if the ubiquitous 'ultra-reliable' AK is just a bit overrated?

Im curious what model of AK you are referring to here. I would almost look at some of the models as different guns because of their manufacturing quality.

I will be the black sheep and say they are not overrated. But, this is dependent on the brand you are talking about imo. Also, one should note that most of the guns you hear these legends about are probably surplus rifles being used in the middle east....this kind of folklore is common on the history channel or military channel. That said, most people who complain or rave about ak"s in the USA have never had access to surplus russian select fire rifles. A Russian made machine gun from years ago is not a yugo or wasr or century or whatever. Maybe someone else can chime in?

Ive not fire a wide gambit of AK type rifles, but the ones I have I reckon would shoot better than some other ones.

**brian** · December 2nd, 2007, 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by Carnes

2. It seems that people tend to think that AKs can be totally abused and still function normally... I have found that this is not true. I have personally witnessed the firring of AK's by numerous company sized elements. During these ranges we have had to remove close to 3% of the rifles from the range due to critical weapon failures.

I have to add the disclaimer that these weapons were NOT well maintained. Some of the weapons were in a deplorable condition, due to a complete lack of simple maintenance.

yes, maintaince is king but,....
on the other side, if those aK's had been aR's in the same general condition how many would have needed to be removed?
i'd have to say 3% out of a group that was in poor condition really isn't bad.
i would be curious to know the nature of some of the malfunctions, jams or parts breakage?
a weapon that can be cleaned with your sock and a few onces of used motor oil seems pretty rugged to me

**dogngun** · December 2nd, 2007, 12:18 PM

No, it's not over rated. It does what it was designed to do very well.
I never was meant to be an AR, nor is an AR an AK.
The first rifle I was issued in the Army was the M-14, and I really liked it. Then I got an M-16 and really liked that, too-I have no problems with the AR system.

The AK is a machine, and is not perfect or infalible, but consider the training level of many of its users over its long history, and its performance has been more than could be expected.

Within the limits of its design and for its intended use, it is an excellent rifle.

mark

FWIW, I own a FAL and a Chinese SKS.

**bogey1** · December 2nd, 2007, 01:06 PM

i have a pre-ban poly tech underfolder w/ bayonet, the thing shoots great but its heavy. especially with the 75 rnd drum. allot cheaoer to shoot, maintenance is super easy. thumbs up to the ak.