Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Anvildude wrote:
Patina is either oxidation or the remnants of the oils and stuff used to prevent oxidation.

In other words- it CAN'T harm a gun more than cleaning it could.

If it is oxidation, you'd want to seal it, yes, to prevent further oxidation, but that oxidation that's already on there is going to protect the surface from FURTHER oxidation. (Unless, of course, it's like, pitted/bright orange sort of really heavy, nasty rust. But in that case the weapon is probably beyond value anyways).
.

I've seen far too many of those nasty orange pitted rust ones. Even a finger print can do that. Dick Vandal, who used to work down at the Carnegie showed me one once. A thumb print had entirely eaten through the barrel. Now, admittedly, it had taken since 1730 to do that, but it did it, eventually.

I'll grant the Sutton is a bit of an oddball since it was preserved in paint, almost half an inch accumulated on it from being painted over and over since the Civil war. But things like Browning, which they'r technically Patina, it was deliberately done to protect the metal. So, no, that should not be removed.

But I'll keep lightly rubbing it with cloth and thinned linseed oil, since shrunken, dry rotted stocks are a terrible thing.

Thinking about painting one of my bolt-guns for the lulz, but I've never painted a firearm before. I watched a couple videos and skimmed a couple articles, but I'm still a little fuzzy on painting the bolt itself.

Should I be worried about accidentally making the thing sticky so it doesn't run very smoothly? I was thinking about just giving it a light dusting to take the shine off (it's jeweled) after taping off the bits that look like they should be taped.

I Duracoated my Mosin Nagant. That stuff is SUPER tough, and even that has worn off a little around the bolt. (Note I did not durracoat the bolt itself, as it's stainless).


Personally, I wouldn't paint the bolt, but if you do I think there would be wear patterns in it pretty quick, and after a couple cleanings it would be gone anyway.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Anvildude wrote:
Patina is either oxidation or the remnants of the oils and stuff used to prevent oxidation.

In other words- it CAN'T harm a gun more than cleaning it could.

If it is oxidation, you'd want to seal it, yes, to prevent further oxidation, but that oxidation that's already on there is going to protect the surface from FURTHER oxidation. (Unless, of course, it's like, pitted/bright orange sort of really heavy, nasty rust. But in that case the weapon is probably beyond value anyways).
.

I've seen far too many of those nasty orange pitted rust ones. Even a finger print can do that. Dick Vandal, who used to work down at the Carnegie showed me one once. A thumb print had entirely eaten through the barrel. Now, admittedly, it had taken since 1730 to do that, but it did it, eventually.

I'll grant the Sutton is a bit of an oddball since it was preserved in paint, almost half an inch accumulated on it from being painted over and over since the Civil war. But things like Browning, which they'r technically Patina, it was deliberately done to protect the metal. So, no, that should not be removed.

But I'll keep lightly rubbing it with cloth and thinned linseed oil, since shrunken, dry rotted stocks are a terrible thing.

Which is of course if and when you do clean rust off you want to give it a protective coat of oil afterwards. If you're constantly cleaning, letting it rust, cleaning, letting it rust... then it will eventually wear away. You gotta clean it and then prevent further rust.

These are all reasons that I like firearms that are made of non-iron, and non-wood components. It saves so much time in their upkeep.

 cuda1179 wrote:
These are all reasons that I like firearms that are made of non-iron, and non-wood components. It saves so much time in their upkeep.

Don’t think that was a option in 1864

 Chute82 wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
These are all reasons that I like firearms that are made of non-iron, and non-wood components. It saves so much time in their upkeep.

Don’t think that was a option in 1864

The non-wood part was, at least on some firearms

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Chute82 wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
These are all reasons that I like firearms that are made of non-iron, and non-wood components. It saves so much time in their upkeep.

Don’t think that was a option in 1864

The non-wood part was, at least on some firearms

Yes, gutta percha and ivory were available, they were very decorative. Both tended to break if they were used as anything but panels.

Personally I like black Walnut. It feels right in my hand, and I can hit something with it and not worry it's going to break.

 cuda1179 wrote:
I Duracoated my Mosin Nagant. That stuff is SUPER tough, and even that has worn off a little around the bolt. (Note I did not durracoat the bolt itself, as it's stainless).


Personally, I wouldn't paint the bolt, but if you do I think there would be wear patterns in it pretty quick, and after a couple cleanings it would be gone anyway.

Thanks. The more I've read and asked around the more I get the impression painting the bolt probably won't work well. Since it's super shiny I think it would end up looking pretty weird on a camo rifle, so I think I'm just going to leave my rifle as it is.

Regarding upkeep, while it can be a hassle we should remember that military service rifles aren't intended to last for 200 years (though they often do). Pumped out by the tens of thosuands they're essentially written off once they're issued. They expect breakage, losses, combat damage, etc. Will it serve an infantryman for 5 years or so? Then it's good enough. In peace time we're fortunate that we have firearms lasting 20-30 years in continued service.

If anything some older service rifles were probably over built for their purpose...something we should be happy about.

If you haven't heard of it, check out the story of the British sten gun from WW2. A pressed metal toy manufacturer was able to cut the cost of production by 70-80% or something amazing, and produce them for a minute fraction of what the military had been initially doing. Pretty slick, and a bargain for a submachinegun.

Which is funny since limited service is something new in the last century. Prior to that weapons were expected to be used for a long time. Some Brown Bess muskets saw 200+ years of use, and we’re refurbished when they broke.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Which is funny since limited service is something new in the last century. Prior to that weapons were expected to be used for a long time. Some Brown Bess muskets saw 200+ years of use, and we’re refurbished when they broke.

Just imagine if someone tried to equip their soldiers with 200 year old weapons nowadays
Goes to show how fast technological progress has gotten.

Anyways, the AK series of rifles is definitely built to last. Those things never break. Mostly due to the fact that they are so simple even a kid can take one apart and assemble it again in seconds. And when you have a gun with almost no parts, there is almost nothing that can break. And if something does break, it is usually very easy to repair. And they have been in service for 50 years now, and I can easily see them being in service for 50 more. Who knows, in 200 years there might still be poorer countries that issue their military with AK variants.

Frankly the US should switch to an AK variant. It is simply a superior platform. The only advantages the M4 and M16 has over it is very long range accuracy, and at only at ranges where combat almost never occurs. Who cares about 1 inch groups at 800 yards when 99% of combat occurs within 100? At which range the two guns accuracy is basically identical.

Then the AK eats the M16s lunch in terms of reliability and ease of maintenance.

The AK would also be cheaper to produce, even with a premium modern variant. The saved $ could be used to give everyone better body armor too

No, they shouldn't. The US should adopt the FN FAL. I've been saying this my entire military career.



As far as firearms owned, my wife is not pro-gun at all. My brother has a .32 auto that he's holding onto for me that will be my home defense weapon, soon as I can either sweet talk the wife into it or make the gun case/safe look like something she wouldn't recognize.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Which is funny since limited service is something new in the last century. Prior to that weapons were expected to be used for a long time. Some Brown Bess muskets saw 200+ years of use, and we’re refurbished when they broke.

undoubtedly some of this is down to simply the science/engineering aspect of more modern firearms.

I'm talking about things like muzzle velocity, and the pressures that are exerted on a barrel/firing chamber. . . The difference between a Kentucky Long Rifle or Brown Bess, and an AR-15 are night and day. Growing up, I was part of a re-enactment group wherein we shot a lot of muzzleloaders (most commonly it was a Thompson Center .54 caliber), and we'd shoot modified empty oxygen tanks, propane tanks, etc etc. . . we'd call them gongs because the velocity achieved by even a "hunting load" of powder meant that the lead ball smacked into the side of the metal and made a nice ringing noise. . .

Well, one year, another group was camping with us, and availed themselves to our targets. . . All those nice ringing targets we had, were punctured clean through by the second group's modern rifles (I know a couple of those guys had firearms that looked like ARs, but I did not personally see the casings on the ground (at least they policed their brass) to see whether they were firing proper 5.56 ammo or not). And this was largely down to the simple firing mechanics/design of the weapons they were using.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Frankly the US should switch to an AK variant. It is simply a superior platform. The only advantages the M4 and M16 has over it is very long range accuracy, and at only at ranges where combat almost never occurs. Who cares about 1 inch groups at 800 yards when 99% of combat occurs within 100? At which range the two guns accuracy is basically identical.

Then the AK eats the M16s lunch in terms of reliability and ease of maintenance.

The AK would also be cheaper to produce, even with a premium modern variant. The saved $ could be used to give everyone better body armor too

The AR is much lighter, has better follow-up shots, is better for females, you can carry more ammo, and is easier to control in full auto.


All this debate about AR vs. AK, I prefer an HK93 myself. Almost as accurate as an AR, every bit as reliable as an AK, still easy to field strip, and self regulates gas pressure for different rounds.

As a long time gun enthusiast, I eventually sided on the AK side of things, though I respect both weapons heavily. Having used M4's on duty and AKs in my personal life I've plenty o' trigger time behind them (and I did own several ARs before selling them off and downsizing my collection).

What I found was two major things:

1) A good AK is not as inaccurate as people want you to believe. (Caveat: 90% of AKs in the US are poorly reassembled kits built off decommissioned/disassembled service rifles from other countries, so they generally give a very poor representation of what an AK-pattern rifle does)

2) The AR is not as unreliable as people say they are. A properly maintained and wet AR shooting the right ammo is reliable as hell. Is it as reliable as an AK? Not in my experience, but it's not so unreliable as to not trust a quality rifle with my life. (Caveat: The AR does have a lethal history and was an embarrassment the way it came into service and the hack-job we did forcing it on soldiers in Vietnam...it has since become a reliable fighting weapon, but I'll never forgive what we did to soldiers early in Vietnam)

If I was running a military? I'd absolutely go with a modern 5.45 AK package. The rifles are completely on par with a basic M4/M16 service rifle. We've found ways around most of its limtations by now. The 5.45 is a beautiful simple, low-recoil cartridge, excellent accuracy, etc. Magazines are robust as feth (polymer/bakelite models), and the gun is reliable, with a quality folding stock on modern versions. One minor flaw is that the 5.45 models are slightly heavier than their 7.62 counterparts because of the barrels, but they are still not heavy rifles by modern standards (right around 7 lbs.)

My biggest complaint about the AK is that if you do encounter an issue, or you want to change something it often necessitates a gunsmith, and a good one. Now that doesn't really matter with a service rifle, but as a personal owner of two AK-74 derivative rifles which have been heavily customized, my rifles now exceed the cost of a quality AR rifle, which is much more plug-n-play with regard to user friendliness.

My personal suggestion to personal firearms owners...get a rifle, and shoot the bejesus out of it. Abuse it a bit, and if it keeps working...stick with it. This is my "brown bitch". She's on a third coat of paint, a second barrel, numerous iterations of gear, and has run 14,000 rounds so far with one failure due to ammo, and a few failures following some gunsmith work (which went back and was fixed properly). Other than that, runs like an absolute top. Accurate to around 2-3 MOA, and all the magazines I currently run are the same 6-8 I started with, all beat up and used surplus magazines.



I have a spare rifle which is more or less the same, but I almost never shoot it. This is my absolute "work" gun. A dozen other rifles have come and gone (including high dollar piston ARs, etc.)...this bitch stays and keeps working.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Frankly the US should switch to an AK variant. It is simply a superior platform. The only advantages the M4 and M16 has over it is very long range accuracy, and at only at ranges where combat almost never occurs. Who cares about 1 inch groups at 800 yards when 99% of combat occurs within 100? At which range the two guns accuracy is basically identical.

Then the AK eats the M16s lunch in terms of reliability and ease of maintenance.

The AK would also be cheaper to produce, even with a premium modern variant. The saved $ could be used to give everyone better body armor too

The AR is much lighter, has better follow-up shots, is better for females, you can carry more ammo, and is easier to control in full auto.


All this debate about AR vs. AK, I prefer an HK93 myself. Almost as accurate as an AR, every bit as reliable as an AK, still easy to field strip, and self regulates gas pressure for different rounds.

Lighter isn’t better. A heavier rifle has less recoil given the same size round. It will also be more robust. But of course you can give an AK plastic furniture if you want so it can be lighter. That’s what the AK-12 and AK-16 have.

Better follow up shots. That’s purely training and practice.

More ammo. If you have a superior weapon and cartridge overall, having slightly fewer rounds isn’t a big deal. But we ask our soldiers to carry a rediculous amount of unnecessary gear. That stuff should get cut back.

Full auto isn’t something that is used for accuracy, so having more control isn’t necessary. But even then the difference is miniscule and just needs practice.

We need to get rid of the mindset that results in making weapons lighter so we can have soldiers carry other crap. Best would be not making them carry anything other than weapons and ammo. Field kit should be carried by robots or vehicles. It’s only been the past 150 years that soldiers have had to carry their kit while fighting and it isn’t good for performance.

Yep, all of your combat effectiveness drops when you're wearing 90 lbs. of gear in a gunfight. There was some research done about how the average infantryman's loadout has increased by a rather shocking percentage in the past 30 years or so. Now I understand some of that is body armour, but at the end of the day weight can get you killed.

I used to get worn out on a long shift in the desert with just 20-25 lbs. of crap (granted I'm...slight). The continued expectation of carrying so much gear is indeed a problem. Of course the two biggest issues are ammo and water, which won't magically disappear anytime soon.

Looking at my collection of AR's, AK's, a FAL, rollery delayed guns, etc, I've found they all have their own quirks.

Personally, the AR15 really does have ergonomics and human engineering down. This, coupled with the modularity, is what makes it so popular. They're also extremely reliable as long as they're built right (most issues come from parts quality or assembly errors), and very light too if built with a pencil barrel. With a flat top receiver, they're also magnificently optics ready. The modularity is fantastic and can be assembled by almost any small shop.

What the AK offers is durability, you can abuse an AK in a way that you cannot abuse something like an AR, be it physical damage, neglecting of maintenance, operation with damaged parts, etc, the AK wins out there. A milled reciever AK is about as close to indestructible as you can get out of a shoulder arm, and stamped guns will outlive most stuff anyway. They're simple, the controls will work in any environment (try an AR mag release thats been frozen), and well suited to large scale production in centralized factories.

That said, anyone running a match or time trial is going to do better with an AR than an AK, hands down, both in time and accuracy, all else being equal. Weapon manipulations are faster and easier, and the quality of available ammunition is superior. I love the 5.45 round and the AK74 (SLR104 in my case), but the ammo choices are severely limited and none of it is exactly match grade (at least what is available in the US). It doesn't help that US made AK's are highly variable in quality. 5.45 is unfortunately becoming increasingly irrelevant worldwide as what few adopter there were move to 5.56 aside from Russia and her closest allies/clients.

I love the engineering aspects of roller delayed guns, but unfortunately all the ones out there are pretty much fundamentally WW2 era designs, both in terms of manufacturing techniques and materials as well as the human engineering. My PTR91/G3 clone basically feels like it was made for people 1.5x larger than actual humans, while the Cetme-L I own has no good way to mount optics natively, the BHO is super awkward and the iron sights are...not great.

The FAL is a beautiful piece of industrial art, but is probably the least reliable and accurate of the post WW2 major battle rifles (aside from the M14). Thats not to say its a terrible gun, they're not, and there's a reason they are still in use in places, but they are obsolescent (though not totally obsolete), I'd put the G3 in that classification as well however.

Pretty much all of these will be more accurate than 90% of shooters are capable of, myself included (particularly from the shoulder), and reliable enough to stake ones life on if you have to.

Among newer designs, I like aspect of each but feel most miss a critical mark in some way. The Beretta's ARX100 is a great gun, and is more modular than anything out there, but the base trigger suuuuuuuucks, you're stuck with an A2 style grip, and Beretta just wont release any conversion kits to 7.62x39 for some reason, and the disassebmly is a bit more fiddly than something like an AR or AK. The SCAR I dont have a huge amount of trigger time behind, but they're absurdly expensive for what they offer. The Bren 805 I recently picked up, and basically its a SCAR for half the price with a match grade trigger and dramatically better fit and finish, albeit about a pount heavier, and they're also a bit more finicky to disassemble than an AR or AK and have non captive holding pins. The Tavor is a lot of fun, though Bullpups are not for everyone and the trigger is also atrocious.

Looking around the world today, aside from the AR15, what we're seeing most of are various takes on the AR18/180 short stroke system (SCAR, Bren 805, SA80, ARX, etc), though the AR15 is becoming increasingly popular around the world. Newer long stroke designs appear to be limited to the Tavor and AK variants like the Galil Ace.

I concur that with the right set-up, an AR in a competition setting will likely outshoot the AK. I've addressed all of my concerns with manipulations on the AK, but that requires a lot of practice and a few extra parts (Kreb's selector, Tromix charging handle, etc.) I don't think there's an actual advantage in a basic infantry firefight, but in a super-speed/super-lightweight competition arena I don't think the AK could be viable without a load of expensive and custom work - whereas most of those components would be drop-in compatible with your average AR rifle.

I always find there is a list of traits for any modern fighting gun, and that people simply have different priorities.

-Cost
-Accuracy
-Reliability
-Weight
-Magazine Size
-Modularity etc.

There is a pre-occupation with accuracy by a lot of the internet and indeed a lot of range folks. It's noticeable when someone defines their gun as simple 1 MOA, or "can do X MOA at 700 yards" etc. I have a buddy who won't own anything he can't shoot 1 MOA with at 100 yeards. With me, I realized my absolute top spot was reliability, and comfortability. I started with this particular rifle maybe...10 years ago now? I've had some very lean years in the middle so I've had some years where I shoot it far less than I'd like. But now it's very much like an old pair of sneakers for me. That coupled with reliability is my primary concern. You never hit anything if the gun doesn't first go bang.

I've owned a lot of firearms, probably too many, but I've finally narrowed it down to just a couple serious work guns (and one fun gun, and an heirloom piece). Man, now I need to go hit up the range...

 Elbows wrote:

I always find there is a list of traits for any modern fighting gun, and that people simply have different priorities.

-Cost
-Accuracy
-Reliability
-Weight
-Magazine Size
-Modularity etc.

Mine goes something like Reliability, stopping power, accuracy. Not really worried about any of the others unless magazine size is really small or it's a complicated/ lengthy process to reload. High stopping power does offset small magazine size. if you only have to shoot once, you don't have to worry about how many rounds you have left unless there's a lot of them. And then you were a damn fool to pull a gun in the first place.

My great grandfather was a fan of the H&R Handy Gun. He'd load it with buckshot, to, and I quote 'clear a path to the door'.

Also, remember that muskets can fire sabots. In fact, there's no end to the nasty things you can put in one, even if it's just gravel.

Yeah, accuracy is definitely often over emphasized, especially at closer ranges. Standing and engaging a 100 meter target off the shoulder, I'm lucky if Im a 6 MOA shooter, same with most people ive found, the gun, almosr any gun, will be far more accurate than I am. If I'm trying to hit a small target at 300 yards off a bench for groups, I'm probably not so hyped about the AK, if for no other reason than ammo consistency, but nothing in my life really involves anything further out than a hundred yards or so. Krebs stuff, especially the safety, goes a long way to fixing a lot of manipulation issues for sure

Comfort and reliability are definitely great standards to go by. In that respect, I'm really starting to like the Tavor a lot more than I thought I would, it just handles magnificently for me, while the front heaviness of the Bren 805 is something of a damper on what is otherwise probably the most finely fit and finished and smooth acting rifle I've ever shot (though the Bren 2 that's 15oz lighter is starting to appear in drips on the market).


With AR prices at what they are these days, its hard to pass them up however. They're just so stupidly cheap and the aftermarket so well developed that you can botique craft almost anything you want to match almost anything else out there, and probably do it at a lower pricepoint

AK's unfortunately appear to be drying up somewhat, and 5.45 guns are probably gone from here on out as Russian imports are banned and Bulgaria apparently has decided they do not want to make them at all anymore and availability from other nations is an increasingly small supply of parts kits.

How good you do in a time trail is down to your personal experience with the platform. The AK doesn’t have worse ergonomics than an AR. It’s just a different platform. An equally familiar person with either platform will perform the same. Someone who is familiar with an AK but not an AR will do very bad with an AR, and vice verse. You have different motions of operation. A different Manual of arms. Accuracy is also far more reliant on your ability than the rifle itself. There are plenty of videos of guys on YouTube hitting tiny groups with AK at 500, 600, and even 800 yards.

Regarding modularity, there is a bevy of AK modifications out there now to the point where you can customise them as easily as an AR. Plastic furniture with picitany rails all over them, etc...

Hrm, owning and shooting both, while generally being something of an AK fanboy (and previously noting that I consider an AK my TEOTWAWKI gun in this thread), it's very hard not to give the AR a big win on ergos over the AK. A big one is the recoil impulse of an AR is more directly in line with the shooters position & body while the AK's stock bends down to ensure the shooter's head remains low enough to use a rear leaf sight (also why the AR sights are taller than the AK sights) and this makes rapid follow up shots easier with the AR, particularly when coupled with the lower recoil mass and greater distance of travel of the bolt, you're not getting the carrier slamming into the rear of the trunnion and transmitting all that force into your shoulder every shot on an AR. With Soviet doctrine of aiming at the belt buckle and squeezing off a 3-5 round burst in a Submachinegun role (as the AK was originally intended and designated as), these things didn't matter much, but with the AR being designed primarily for use in semiautomatic as a rifle, they matter more in that role.

The safety is another greap example, on an AK you have to break your firing grip (at least with a traditional safety) to remove or place the safety on, while you don't with an AR, you just thumb the switch. Even with something like a Krebs safety, this takes a bit more movement and makes a loud audible noise relative to an AR.

To take another example, no matter how well you practice, you will never match the same speed at doing something like mag changes with an AK that you will with an AR if you put an equal amount of time into both, there's simply more movement involved with the AK as the hand has a greater distance to move. Assuming you retain control of the weapon with your trigger hand and that you're right handed, with an AK you have to move your left hand back to the mag, grab the mag and thumb the mag release and manually pull the mag out, while with the AR you just use your trigger finger to drop the mag instead. To add to that, the AR also has a bolt hold open, which informs the shooter when they are out of ammo through intuitive feel rather than going to pull the trigger and hearing it go "click", and a bolt release button to quickly and easily close the bolt on a new mag instead of having to rack the bolt. That will make the AK a second or two slower to reload. How relevant that is, is up to the shooter, but you're never going to match the reload speed of an AR with an AK in a time trial (assuming all else is equal, however, by the same token, that AK mag release won't get stuck and freeze the way the AR mag release can), there's physically just more operations and distance involved with the AK and there's no way around that. Karl Kasarda on InRangeTV shows this in a video, doing in ~30 seconds with an AR what it took ~36 seconds to do with an AK.

An AR is also much more lefty-friendly, with the charging handle being naturally ambidextrous, the ejection with the shell deflector making cases hitting one in the face when firing from the left largely a non-issue, ambi mag releases and safeties are easily adapted or are standard at this point, all stuff that AK's generally don't have going for them (though I guess you could call the mag release on an AK ambi).

Yes, they have a different manual of arms, but you give someone equal training time on both and you'll be getting faster and more accurate shots with the AR. The degree to which that is relevant is subjective, but there's a reason nobody is showing up to Camp Perry with an AK but you'll see gobs of AR's. Now, in most cases most rifles are more accurate than their shooters, especially if fired from something other than a bench rest at a stationary target. That's certainly the case for me. However, that doesn't meant that there can't be noticeable differences when all else is equal once you start to look at a specific context. For instance, inherently, an AR having more locking lugs means a more repeatable lockup and a more reliable accuracy over the AK's two lug bolt, but at the same time, the AK won't shear lugs off the way the AR can. Other things not necessarily inherent to the rifle itself but rather to the weapon *system* come into play, like ammo. If nothing else, you can get match grade 5.56 ammo that has been shown to consistently shoot three quarter or even half-MoA in AR's capable of delivering that, but with the ammo available for AK platforms, no matter how good the AK is, there just isn't ammo of that quality manufactured/imported. This won't make a difference at 50 yards, but trying to hit a small target at 200 yards may be a very different story.

While there's lots of vids of stuff with AK's, I'm having trouble finding any videos of AK's at 800 yards much less any with tiny groups. From my own experience, if I can manage a hit at 300 yards on a torso sized target I'm doing fantastic. Rob Ski, the guy that runs the AK Operators Union channel, does a video showing an Iron Sighted 7.62x39 AK at 500 yards, landing 7 of 10 shots *somewhere* on a torso sized target from a rest (Hell, even with an AR, 500 yard iron sight shots are very difficult and won't be printing tiny groups). When he does 600 yard shots with a magnified optic and the 5.45 round (not the 7.62x39), he's hitting the target but not getting tiny groups and straight up says it's harder than with an AR.

The AK has upgrades to enhance its modularity, but they don't all necessarily work quite as well (replace standard AK handguards with a quadrail and you have half as much railspace as you do on a typical 16" AR for example). With mounting an optic, you just bolt it to the top pic rail that's an inherent part of the receiver on an AR, whereas with an AK you either have to use the siderail that prevents the use of folding stocks in most cases and will require more frequent removal (for field stripping) and a heavy accessory bolted to the side of the gun. Alternatively you can try an AK top cover with an integrated rail, but those have very spotty records of holding zero. Frequently, such accessories for the AK are simply substantially heavier. Swapping a stock on an AK can also be an interesting proposition, and there's a whole lot more compatibility issues and different receiver types. What fits an AKM won't fit a milled receiver AK and won't fit a Yugo pattern gun for example. To swap a barrel on an AK you basically need a machineshop, on an AR you need a vice and a wrench.

What in the name of God is this monstrosity?

I've watched the video, but I still don't get it.

I hope none of my fellow dakka members ever bought one of these.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Yes, gutta percha and ivory were available, they were very decorative. Both tended to break if they were used as anything but panels.

Personally I like black Walnut. It feels right in my hand, and I can hit something with it and not worry it's going to break.

Did people really make guns out of black walnut? That stuff absorbs and stores heat easier and longer than any other wood.

I too own both AKs and ARs. I would unhesitatingly trust my life to my AK, but I think it has substantially worse length of pull, bad options for attaching optics, the iron sights are terrible, and the charging handle handle and safety are both poorly situated.

In a bad situation I would probably take one of my shorter ARs. I would be trading off reliability for a lighter weapon that I know I can find ammo for at any place that sells ammo. If I knew for sure I'd be able to find 7.62x39 I would probably answer differently.

 LumenPraebeo wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Yes, gutta percha and ivory were available, they were very decorative. Both tended to break if they were used as anything but panels.

Personally I like black Walnut. It feels right in my hand, and I can hit something with it and not worry it's going to break.

Did people really make guns out of black walnut? That stuff absorbs and stores heat easier and longer than any other wood.

Well that was when a gun would only be firing 3-4 shots a minute. More time to cool between shots.

 Ouze wrote:
I too own both AKs and ARs. I would unhesitatingly trust my life to my AK, but I think it has substantially worse length of pull, bad options for attaching optics, the iron sights are terrible, and the charging handle handle and safety are both poorly situated.

In a bad situation I would probably take one of my shorter ARs. I would be trading off reliability for a lighter weapon that I know I can find ammo for at any place that sells ammo. If I knew for sure I'd be able to find 7.62x39 I would probably answer differently.

See, now stuff like this is intriguing to me. The gripes people have with an AK are so easily and cheaply fixed, it's just a matter of selling a gun modified like that instead of regurgitating the bog standard classic AK pattern. I used to run a lengthy blog on building and running what I called the MFAK or Modern Fighting AK, basically overcoming the minor shortfalls of the gun simply and easily. My first suggestion was always the $100 upgrade package which at the time was: Tromix charging handle, alternate pistol grip (US Palm is my preference and I think they're dead), Kreb's retaining plate, and Kreb's selector/safety. Literally $100 and it made the gun 2x more easy to manipulate and run on par with an average AR.

As a right handed shooter, the rifle is ideally set up, and I actually find the side charging handle to be a huge benefit (mainly as you can manipulate it far easier in awkward circumstances, while sitting with the rifle in a vehicle, prone, etc. The tromix charging handle means you really can kickstart it like a damn motorcyle if you have a serious malfunction (much as you would "mortar" an AR). I love that with the selector closed the handle/bolt lets you very easily check for a loaded chamber without any risk of dislodging the round, and you get a proper and 100% seat by following it forward afterwards.

Using the Kreb's selector safety the manipulation becomes more or less AR speed. Sweeping it up or down with your trigger finger or index finger. I've never used the bolt-hold open slot, but I suppose for some safety-conscious classes it would be a benefit. I know some classes you need to lock the bolt to the rear after a course or fire, for inspection (we did this during quals, etc.)

While I carried an M4 on duty, I did find that anytime I'd been running an AK, I found the AR just slightly more "annoying" to use. I enjoyed the cave man simple nature of it - the fewer points of failure or places to look if something didn't go right. This is why I laughed a bit when I saw the AK-12 (which isn't actually happening anymore) come out, and it more or less just had the basica components we'd been starting to toss on the rifle in the US for several years. They don't need to reinvent the wheel, they need to add about five or six things to bring the rifle inline with modern firearms and they're set. The AK is definitely the more "ingenious" rifle of the two in that it accomplishes the same exact goal with fewer parts and more reliability --- so I'm fearful they'll feth that up in the future.