AK-74 Filled with Sand-Video

[Vikram]

[Baljit]

All, AK guns works just fine , no matter if it in sand,rain or mud.
Thanks for the video Vikram.

Baljit

[xl_target]

I've actually seen an AK variant not work.
It was one of the infamous Century Arms WASR 10 variants and it would fail to pick up the next cartridge after firing the chambered round.
The guy bought it, fired a few rounds and put it away for two years. When I pulled it apart, everything inside had a coating of rust.
So they can fail, just that its not that common to see one choke.
To be fair, it was totally devoid of lube and a few squirts of oil had it running again.

[sandy_3126]

Rifle is a rifle, every rifle jams if used like an idiot. AK's too need love. But yes by design Ak is more ruged and because of the gas Piston system it runs relatively cleaner compared to direct impingement system.

[xl_target]

Umm, you cant directly compare an AK's piston system to the M16's direct impingement system. Apples to Oranges.
There is no such thing as a direct impingement AK.

Also keep in mind that direct impingement M16's have now been used in the middle east and Afghanistan for over a decade and have not elicited widespread complaints from the soldiers who use them. Contrary to many journalistic accounts, most of the soldiers using the M16 and the M4 say they like them.

[sandy_3126]

Umm, you cant directly compare an AK's piston system to the M16's direct impingement system. Apples to Oranges.
There is no such thing as a direct impingement AK.

Also keep in mind that direct impingement M16's have now been used in the middle east and Afghanistan for over a decade and have not elicited widespread complaints from the soldiers who use them. Contrary to many journalistic accounts, most of the soldiers using the M16 and the M4 say they like them.

No, I am just saying that Pistons keep the bolt carrier and receiver cleaner than a DI. AK's ruggedness is not just attributed to that, but to the entire construction, intentional allowances, robust extractor, over engineered recoil springs.
that said, it doesn't mean that AK's won't Jam, they do jam do need cleaning.

[xl_target]

Just for informational purposes, the Internet will tell you that the Direct Impingement (DI) action of an M16/M4/AR15 will cause the rifle's action and chamber to get dirty fast and that will eventually cause it to stop functioning. While there is no denying that this can happen. It is surprising how many rounds you can get through an AR-15 before it will actually get dirty enough to malfunction
.
On the other hand, "the Internets" will tell you that no matter what you do to an AK, it will keep firing. From my experience, as you can see from my earlier post, that is not true.

In the US today, AR-15's are everywhere. They are cheap and highly reliable. Surprisingly, with even a WASR-10 being in the $500+ range, I can put an AR-15 together for less than I can buy an AK47.

There seems to be a certain lack of understanding of how the AR-15 bolt carrier group (BCG) functions. It is a very simple mechanism.
In its most basic form, it consists of the Bolt carrier, the firing pin (and the firing pin retainer) and the bolt. The bolt carrier is basically just a tube of machined steel with a hole at both ends . The bolt goes in one end. There is a “gas key” bolted on top of the whole assembly with two bolts. The bolt is held in place by a cam pin.


bolt carrier group. Image from here

The BCG has gas vents that vent excess gas outside the action.
You can see that clearly in the video below.


As you can see in the video above, excess gas is vented from the gas vents in the bolt carrier, so the AR-15 can function reliably with cartridges that generate a low pressure or a higher pressure. Of course, there are limits to this as you have to impart enough energy to the BCG to compress the recoil spring. Too high a pressure, like with any firearm, would exceed the design specifications. Eugene Stoner's self regulating design is really very elegant in its simplicity.
Watch the AK as it fires. The mass of the piston and the bolt carrier recoiling backwards and forwards, causes the barrel to flex, among other things. Tolerances are loose enough that crud in the action is not that big a deal. Some of the Russian ammo is just plain filthy and leaves crud everywhere and the insides of a fired AK can get absolutely filthy. Still, there is no doubt that the AK is a very reliable rifle.

Here is a very simplified version of how the AR-15's DI system operates:
When a cartridge is fired in an AR-15, the cartridge casing expands, gripping the walls of the chamber tightly, making a tight gas seal. As soon as the bullet travels past the gas port in the barrel, gas travels back down the gas tube and impinges on the gas key. Excess gas travels down the gas key, into the bolt carrier body and out the gas vents.
This gas exerts rearward pressure on the bolt carrier, causing the bolt to rotate open. This rearward motion also pushes the whole assembly backwards allowing the extractor to pull the empty cartridge out of the chamber and aid in ejecting it.
The rearward pressure now causes the entire BCG to travel backwards till its movement is arrested by the compression of the recoil spring. The forward pressure exerted by the now compressed recoil spring, propels the BCG forward again, stripping a fresh cartridge from the magazine and feeding it into the chamber. When the BCG reaches the forward most part of it travel, the bolt lugs have contacted the barrel extension and have been forced to rotate shut, locking the bolt into the barrel extension.
The cycle can begin anew when the trigger is pulled.



Tolerance can be held tight enough that the BCG does need lubing occasionally. For example, on my carbine that I use quite regularly, I cant remember the last time I actually cleaned it properly. Apart from running a bore snake through it occasionally and using a dry lube on the BCG, it hasn't seen any tender, loving care in quite a while. The OTIS Dry Lube that I use, allows me to wipe the BCG off with a cloth and just hit it again with more lube. The dry lube doesn't hold powder particles like some oils can.
I have lost count of the number of rounds that I have fired through this carbine now but it has never failed to feed, fire or eject. I'm usually lucky if I can find 50% - 75% of the brass that I fire in the grass at my range. I have processed several thousand rounds so far and I have about 3000 rounds sitting unprocessed in my reloading room. This is discounting the steel cased ammo which is not reloadable. That gives a rough estimate of the round count through this rifle. I fire pretty much any ammo through it that I can get my hands on; from high end Hornady match ammo to my reloads to the cheapest, filthiest, steel cased, steel core Russian junk. As far as function goes, the rifle doesn't care. Accuracy, however, changes with the quality of the ammo.

So just saying that "the AK's Piston will keep the bolt carrier and receiver cleaner than the AR's DI system is not true". Still, the myth that the M16/M4/AR-15 DI system is unreliable keeps going on.
Read the article below for some additional information.
The Big M4 Myth: Fouling caused by the direct impingement gas system makes the M4/M4A1 Carbine unreliable.

Additional info: My rifle is slightly overgassed in its present form but I do not notice any gas to the face when shooting. I use a standard Carbine buffer and spring. I also use the Crane O- ring over the extractor spring but all that came as standard when purchased. I assembled the lower from parts and bought a complete upper (less the BCG and charging handle).

[RoyalSingh]

Thanks a lot xl_target, that a pretty good explanation on gun working.
AK's sealed charging handle makes it resistant to environmental factors such as rust and corrosion as well.
Have heard that rifle is capable of shooting straight after being exposed to water, not sure how practical it is in actual though.

Regards
RoyalSingh

[estousandy]

Isn't the AR vs AK reliability chart supposed to be plotted when deployed in extremities or torture use, the frozen peaks, unforgiving deserts or the muckiest of tropical woods? AR started getting this negative merit when the news of its use started coming out of such conditions, which sadly is still coming in albeit in much lower numbers but still higher than its vintage competitor. Both these platforms can be equally good or bad in a well contained firing range even with junk ammo given barely any earthly contaminants actually enter their innards. AK was designed in an era when dirty ammo was the norm in that part of the world & the design was such to work reliably with that filth, the industrial grade tolerances are there for a reason. The norm still stays in most of its current user base under similar extreme conditions. I'm not saying the current crop of ARs would fail miserably in such situations but it's just too 'refined' for the filthy streets and will require a couple of shades more maintenance to keep up which can cost dearly.

[xl_target]

Isn't the AR vs AK reliability chart supposed to be plotted when deployed in extremities or torture use, the frozen peaks, unforgiving deserts or the muckiest of tropical woods? AR started getting this negative merit when the news of its use started coming out of such conditions, which sadly is still coming in albeit in much lower numbers but still higher than its vintage competitor. Both these platforms can be equally good or bad in a well contained firing range even with junk ammo given barely any earthly contaminants actually enter their innards. AK was designed in an era when dirty ammo was the norm in that part of the world & the design was such to work reliably with that filth, the industrial grade tolerances are there for a reason. The norm still stays in most of its current user base under similar extreme conditions. I'm not saying the current crop of ARs would fail miserably in such situations but it's just too 'refined' for the filthy streets and will require a couple of shades more maintenance to keep up which can cost dearly.

I must disagree.
The first Gulf War started in 1990 and lasted till sometime in 1991
The second Gulf War (or the Iraq war) started in 2003 and "officially" ended in 2011.
The Afghanistan war started in 2001 and "officially" ended in 2014.

During this time, tens of thousands of US troops have used the M16/M4 in some of the harshest conditions on earth, without any major issues.
Did you read the article that I posted the link to?

[estousandy]

The average rag tag militia man who wields the AK barely will have the necessary discipline to clean or not abuse his firearm, trained or not. You can't disagree an AR might just need a bit more cleanup under same conditions. A professional force like US has it ingrained in them & prefers accuracy & maneuverability over out and out reliability. IF they follow procedures, it'll work just as reliably as enemy's weapons. What when the IF happens in the thick of battle, as quoted below? I had a quick glance through your link & i clearly realize the high reliability of AR IF upgraded with a few parts. I doubt how many M4s in the hands of standard grunts will have those improvements at the moment. A civie gun lover like you & I would go to great lengths to make our toys have the best of parts.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/11/01 ... ire-fight/

The problem became visible after the Battle of Wanat in 2008 at Combat Outpost Kahler in Afghanistan. Nine soldiers of the 173rd Brigade Combat Team were killed and 27 others were injured. Their weapons, including M249 machine guns, Mk 19 grenade launchers and M4 carbines, stopped firing due to overheating.The flaws of the M4 carbine have been well known to military analysts. For example, tests in 1990 and a report by US Special Operations Command in 2001 proved its numerous shortcomings. However, that was ignored by lawmakers as well as by military command.

The author prefers his AR to the AK but the above quote is part of the article as well. I'm sure those troopers maintained their weapons well but the hellish mid-eastern heat & tight tolerances wont exactly be easy on this platform. AKs do jam, never gonna deny that but rarely to these reasons. Both are great platforms with its on USPs. That's why AK & insas(accuracy wise) are used in conjunction in Indian CI/CT ops.

[xl_target]

My civilian carbine is not much different that what is issued to the services, except that is is semi-auto and not select fire. The current contract is held by FNH-USA. My barrel and BCG are made by FN. All other parts are manufactured to military specs by various providers.
The NSWC Crane extractor o-ring is constructed of Viton. OD is 1/4", ID is 1/8". Thickness is 1/16". It increases extractor force.
The Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Division is located at Crane Indiana. They specified the O ring on the extractor and it is supposed to be used extensively in the services. So I guess that could be considered milspec too.
The only non-milspec parts that I have on my carbine is the furniture; buttstock, pistol grip and handguard. All of which are just cosmetic improvements and don't affect function.

Since you cite Wanat as a result of supposed failure of the AR-15, lets look at what happened there. As far as the battle of Wanat goes, there are multiple reports claiming contradictory things. The facts that are not in doubt are that a US outpost, in the process of being setup, was attacked by overwhelming numbers of insurgents. It is a testament of the skills of the soldiers defending and their ability to use their small arms to good effect, that only nine died.

About 4:20 a.m. on July 13, Taliban forces opened fire on the base with machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades, and mortars. Another 100 militants attacked the observation post from farmland to the east.[7]

The initial attack hit the forward operating base's mortar pit, knocking out the 120mm mortar and detonating the stockpile of mortar ammunition. The insurgents next destroyed the Humvee-mounted TOW missile launcher inside the combat outpost with coordinated fire from unguided RPG rockets. The mortars and TOW launcher which were to provide the heaviest and most accurate firepower had been quickly taken out by the attackers. The explosion of the mortar shells hurled the anti-tank missiles into the command post.[20]

From the American perspective, the most serious situation was the attack concentrated on a small team situated at the small observation post "TOPSIDE" nestled among rocks under a tree 50m to 70m outside the main base. The first round hit accurately, wounding or stunning every soldier. Pfc. Tyler Stafford was blown out of his machine-gun position next to Spc. Matthew Phillips who threw a grenade before he was mortally wounded. Cpl. Jason Bogar fired hundreds of rounds from his automatic weapon until the barrel became white-hot and jammed and then tended to Stafford's wounds. A rocket grenade wounded Sgt. Ryan M. Pitts, who was also tended by Bogar with a tourniquet around Pitts' leg before switching to another gun. Bogar then jumped from the outpost bunker to get close enough to kill insurgents who were firing down upon the men from the village hotel. Once outside the bunker, he was shot through the chest and killed. The surviving soldiers then ran from the outpost to the main post, leaving Pitts behind. Alone, Pitts was able to hold-off the Taliban from overrunning his position until his comrades returned two hours later and he was evacuated to receive medical care.[21]

Four U.S. soldiers were killed within the first 20 minutes of the battle, another died later, and at least three others were wounded. Three times teams of soldiers from the main base ran through Taliban fire to resupply the observation post and carry back the dead and wounded.[3][8][22][23]

The U.S. troops responded with machine guns, grenades, and claymore mines. Artillery guns at Camp Blessing fired 96 155mm artillery rounds. The Taliban briefly breached the wire of the observation post before being driven back. After almost half an hour of intense fighting at the observation post, only one soldier remained. He was seriously wounded and fought alone until reinforcements arrived. Some militants also managed to get past the main base's eastern barriers.[citation needed] Two American soldiers, platoon leader First Lieutenant Jonathan P. Brostrom, 24, of Hawaii and Corporal Jason Hovater, were killed trying to deliver ammunition to the observation post.[24] American soldiers were at times flushed out of their fortifications by what they thought were grenades, but which were actually rocks thrown by the attackers.[3][8] Brostrom, Hovater, and another soldier may have been killed by an insurgent who penetrated the wire perimeter.[20]

quote fromhere

There are three sentences that I have highlighted in bold.
In the first instance, the soldier fired his rifle enough that the barrel got white hot. No rifle can survive the kind of treatment where the barrel will actually lose its integrity. Any weapon that is fired to the extent that its barrel will overheat far beyond what it was designed for, will fail.

In the second and third sentence that I have highlighted, individual soldiers held off superior number of the enemy for extended periods of time. Do you think they could have done that with weapons that had malfunctioned?

I could see that this had the makings of an AK vs AR battle but I never mentioned that one rifle was better than the other. My initial reply to Sandy was not that the AR is more durable than the AK. It was to address the often quoted notion that the AR's direct impingement system is inherently dirty and will cause rapid failure of the rifle. It was also to address the fact that the AK's piston system doesn't prevent its receiver from getting dirty.

The article that you quoted also says:

The key to the buffer/gas impingement system of the AR is sustained fire with no muzzle climb.

The AK, when properly manufactured (or sometimes not) is a great historical weapon but long outdated and needs to be put to rest. I love my AK’s, no question about that. I also picture using them at 80 yards and watching them climb on rapid semi-automatic fire or go berserk on full automatic the same way an M14 does.

Today, if you want to put 3 rounds into a torso at 80 yards, its a .223/5.56mm AR with an Eotech every time.

[xl_target]

In the interests of stimulating more thought on the subject here are three videos: