I have been looking at rifles in the last few moments of spare time I will have before I head back to the Corps, and I just watched a video of a guy bad mouthing the AR-15 something fierce. Very Annoying. The AR and the AK are built on two different mindsets for two different purposes. In their own niche, each weapons performs very well, especially when you tweak them a little.
The AR is built on the American military philosophy that superior training and equipment will always beat superior numbers. Thus, the weapon constructed by a number of tight fitting parts that enhance accuracy, but are less tolerant of foreign matter or bad maintenance. Thus, the IRA used the Armalite AR-15 in Ireland (ever wonder about the name Ire-land, a land full of ire, but I digress) for accurate, sharp combat, then ran home, cleaned the thing, took care of it, and used it again.
The AK, on the other hand, is built on the Russian philosophy that if you throw enough people at the enemy, you'll win sooner or later, probably later. Put another way, quantity over quality (that's why Russia does not make semi-auto AK-47s, they are all fully automatic). The AK can spew out a lot of hard hitting lead in a short time, even if you just pulled the thing out of a bed of quicksand. The reason for this is that the gun is made of fewer, looser fitting pieces, so there is more wiggle room for dirt, mud, and general junk to get in without jamming the gun. The problem is that this wiggle room destabilizes the firing chamber, so after about a hundred yards, accuracy goes out the window. The AK is an excellent gun if you are fighting (or hunting, I tell my dad) in thick brush or if you will be using it for long periods without being able to clean it.
Both guns are great, but neither can do the other's job. If you try to make them, don't get mad that they don't measure up.
No comments:
Post a Comment