Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 10/6/2002 3:52:08 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/6/2002 3:55:05 PM EDT by Zardoz]
3) Ammunition cost: I like to keep an assload of ammo on hand, and the 5.45 is just a hell of a lot cheaper. Also, most AK's are nowhere near as ammunition sensitive as a lot of ARs are.

2) Reliability: while a properly functioning AR will stay that way as long as it's properly maintained, an AK requires much less in the way of maintenance to remain operational, and suffers from FAR fewer problems, as evidenced by the number of current threads in the respective "Troubleshooting" forums: AR=556 vs AK=23. (disclaimer: the discrepency is likely far less than appears, due to the number of redundant topics in the AR's forum, and the MUCH greater traffic in same, as opposed to the AK's forum) This is primarily due to:

1) Simplicity of design: The simpler design of the AK, requiring far fewer moving parts, lends itself to greater inherent reliability (ie. less to crap out on you when you need it). While pin-point accuracy is sacrificed for reliability, an AK is still accurate enough to engage targets out to 3-400 meters, which is plenty good enough.

1a) I didn't trade even-up: I also got a CETME.
Link Posted: 10/6/2002 4:20:15 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/6/2002 8:57:47 PM EDT
Sounds reasonable to me. I really like the Romaks, I wish I would have got one when they were "plentiful"-I do have a SAR 1 and 2 though, so its not like I am lacking.
Top Top