|Originally Posted By TrojanMan:
Originally Posted By strat81:
Originally Posted By Howie_Phelterbush:
but the AK started with a reliable and robust magazine.
And piss poor sights and piss poor ergonomics.
For 1947, the ergos were awesome. Short stock, good spacing on the comb, pistol grip, no heavier than it needs to be, intuitive, reliable function (face it - there's nothing intuitive about a charging handle), and the sights are "good enough."
Try this test: Find a 10-year-old in America who has nbever fired a gun before. Should be easy, just ask one of your kids' friends. Hand them a magazine full of dummy rounds and an AK. Tell them to chamber a round and "fire" it. Now do the same with an AR. See which one takes them longer. Now tell them to disassemble them and reassemble them. See which one takes them longer. And American kids even have the "advantage" of modern video games showing them how it's done.
We love the AR because we're familiar with it. It makes sense to us and we can manipulate it without thinking. Take that away, and the AK is the better weapon.
IMHO, the best advantage of the AR pattern is that it offers the best platform available for optics. (A3 profile, at least) There's no easy way to put an EOTech on an AK.
You make excellent points, but it's not 1947 anymore.
I own an AK. It's fun. It's simple to use. And I suppose if I was illiterate and couldn't read a manual on how to operate a rifle, it would be easier to figure out.
But, it's 2011, I can read, and the mag catch and selector/safety are in better places on the AR, and the AR has always had better sights (even the M1 had better sights than the AK). Better accuracy is the icing on the cake.
I am floored that Russians still use the AK. I don't think the AR is the perfect gun, but I'm surprised the Russians haven't come up with something better than either of them. I don't know if it's a cost issue, or simply a reflection of their military doctrine.