Nothing wrong, just a different philosophy vs the AR-15.
There's at least 3 companies in can think of off the top of my head making AKs from the ground up in the US right now. Not to mention the dozen import varieties.
>There's at least 3 companies in can think of off the top of my head making AKs from the ground up in the US right now.
And they all fricking suck shit
Stonerization of rifles isn't a meme.
Also, who cares, AK's are absolute hot garbage and an AR-variant is better in 110% of cases.
If you complain about the availability of AK's in the US you have a tankie fetish.
Not the point. There is plenty of availability for AKs. You can go into any gun store in the country that sells ARs and they will also sell AKs. Also the AR market is misleading, as most of those companies simply buy forgings from the same handful of foundries and simply do the finish machining. Virtually nobody in the AR market is making their ARs 100% start to finish except the guys building them in ghost gunners.
The Beryl in your pic was as far as it ever got and the Poles still dumped it for an AR18 derivative.
Three is barely enough to have competition. PSA and KUSA can barely put something together without it being guaranteed to be RMA on arrival.
Manufacture cost is a bit higher due to the short piston needing quite a bit more doodads than its stamped metal frame would suggest.
Quality and accuracy tends to be poor for the ancient shot-through soviet rifles everywhere, but a modern Czech AK can have good accuracy. Reliability is a meme and 100% false.
Overall it is a valid choice, but it doesn't really have any significant advantages or disadvantages over its competition.
>Czech AK
Dog they designed adopted the VZ58 despite having the TDP basically given to them.
None really. Biggest issue was trying to modernize it but that's been solved.
If weight is an issue to you spend the extra bucks to replace all the steel with Titanium alloy.
Then do the same thing with an AR and make it even lighter.
https://i.imgur.com/OYTmVlj.jpg
Not the point. There is plenty of availability for AKs. You can go into any gun store in the country that sells ARs and they will also sell AKs. Also the AR market is misleading, as most of those companies simply buy forgings from the same handful of foundries and simply do the finish machining. Virtually nobody in the AR market is making their ARs 100% start to finish except the guys building them in ghost gunners.
All all the AK's in gunstores are either Century, Riley, or Pioneer. That's a surefire way for people, who have never had an AK before, to hate the platform forever.
https://i.imgur.com/EQaiCUe.jpg
Top cover sucks, you can jury rig up solutions but all are objectively worse than not having a stupid dust cover and just having a rail on top
Long stroke is arguably worse than short stroke, bcg is a bit heavier
Receiver design is much more capital intensive to manufacture than AR15's for stamped rifles, milled rifles are heavier on a gun that is already a bit heavy
Much harder to make modular like more modern rifles
They are not bad rifles per se but the design is fundamentally antiquated in the 21st century
t. AK enjoyer
Capital intensive is subjective. Stampings and spot welding are still way faster and cheaper to pump out per unit if you amortize over hundreds of thousands of units. There's just barely any shop getting that kind of volume anymore.
The closest shooting range to me bans AK firearms explicitly for thus reason. They're a bunch of fudds and Jesus freaks, but the next range is three times further down the road.
Americans used these in the ME and currently use them in Syria against ISIS. A weapon is a weapon, it is the person behind it that decides how it is used. An AK can even only be used to hunt and feed your family, as with an AR, which can be used for bad reasons as well.
Manufacture cost is a bit higher due to the short piston needing quite a bit more doodads than its stamped metal frame would suggest.
Quality and accuracy tends to be poor for the ancient shot-through soviet rifles everywhere, but a modern Czech AK can have good accuracy. Reliability is a meme and 100% false.
Overall it is a valid choice, but it doesn't really have any significant advantages or disadvantages over its competition.
>it doesn't really have any significant advantages or disadvantages over its competition
Except:
+20% crit chance against members of the warsaw pact
+20% crit chance against people brandishing swastikas
+20% dmg against civilians
-40% accuracy
-30 INT
For the situation it's a solid pick.
even the Beryl, which is one of the best AKs you can get right now at least in the USA (imported). It's just heavier, typically harder to modify/customize, and less ergonomic. You can get good with AKs but ARs are easier to deal with in almost every way, and are also typically a little more accurate. Free float 14 inch handguard > 6 inch basic handguard any day. Even the great benefit of the AK's reliability comes at the cost of being very gassy rifles. Even if you buy a brand new AK you could end up getting one that's fricked up in terms of it's gas (See: Arsenal SAM5). That's not too say that ARs can't be under or over gassed but it seems to be a bigger problem with a lot of AKs out there. Plus the common fix for a gassy AK is to buy a new adjustable piston which is not cheap.
Awkward charging handle placement.
Awkward magwell.
Awkward magrelease.
No possibility for a floating barrel.
That's why I don't like the AK.
It would be better if it was ambidextruous, with better controls.
>Heavy as fricking shit >Very unergonomic and do not support lefties >Dogshit trigger >Jams at the first sign of dust (it does not have a dust cover) >Doesn't natively support most modern ergonomic attachments >Not easy to swap barrels or change lengths
Other than that it's pretty okay. 5.45 is fine, they're accurate enough for military rifles. The piston system works alright.
>So what's exactly wrong with AK as a platform?
US manufacturers keep copying the dogshit stamped steel soviet poorgay design, instead of the far superior Finnish milled design.
Except that >RK's can actually have the rear sights on the dust cover because they managed to manufacture an AK that retains zero, giving you superior sight radius >can be easily fitted with any type of rail/accessory an AR can be, unlike soviet AK's >free-floating barrel
It's just better.
Side-rails have been standard on all rifles since the AK74M/100 series starting in 1991. If the user wants to mount optics, there are plenty of options to do so. Also the sight radius on a standard AK and a standard M4 is virtually identical, 14.8 inches vs 15 inches. Valmet doesn't even take maximum advantage of the rear mounted sight, because they moved their front sight post back to the gas block.
That was because, despite his reputation, Kalashnikov was a bit of a fudd. He also maintained that 7.62x39 was a better cartridge than 5.45x39. He thought his rifle, as originally adopted was the best, and maintained that until his death. God bless him, but he was incorrect.
The concept of a large piston rifle is fine. The problem is the Russians cannot afford to make a whole new rifle from the ground up that takes advantages of being designed for optics and rails, so you have to go about in in a round about why with zentico or use a shitty ak12 dust cover pic rail. It’s an outdated rifle concept that it’s on its last legs. Even the Chinese have a better/more modern rifle.KMT8K5
Age, really. It was designed 76 years ago with specific doctrines and materials in mind, and attempts at modernization have proven to be fantastic failures in every sense. The AK-12 is a fricking joke of a "modern" weapon.
They're fun to shoot and fun to have, but the only people who still take them seriously for modern fighting are commies trying to larp as the red guard using daddy's money to buy their expensive toy.
if you want some fun, you should go look at the "socialist rifle association" subreddit, it's full of idiot commies posting about the AK they bought for $2K while calling it "the people's rifle"
Top cover sucks, you can jury rig up solutions but all are objectively worse than not having a stupid dust cover and just having a rail on top
Long stroke is arguably worse than short stroke, bcg is a bit heavier
Receiver design is much more capital intensive to manufacture than AR15's for stamped rifles, milled rifles are heavier on a gun that is already a bit heavy
Much harder to make modular like more modern rifles
They are not bad rifles per se but the design is fundamentally antiquated in the 21st century
t. AK enjoyer
>They are not bad rifles per se but the design is fundamentally antiquated in the 21st century
I hear people say this. What exactly is antiquated about it? It's fundamental use is to break the human anatomy with bullets. It does exactly that to this actual hour of the 21st century.
Not him but three major points that have become crucially important in the 21st century are weight, accuracy, and optics.
Lighter is almost always much better and AKs are always heavy. Their barrels cannot be free floated and their action renders them inherently less accurate anyway. This didn't matter as much in the days of open sights, but now rifles should be more accurate to take advantage of advances in optics and should have good optic mounting solutions to take advantage of their accuracy. The AK has neither. Side rail is the best option, but it weighs a ton, is unwieldy, and holds zero worse than a pic mount.
I have two AKs and three ARs if that matters. I consider my AKs fun larp toys and I actually train and hunt with my ARs.
I got mine in 2014ish, came with the adjustable one. I'm not a fan though and I want to swap it back. The fixed bipod IMO looks so much better. Plus in its shorter length, the adjustable isnt't worth a shit anyways.
>heavier >manual of arms is worse >rock and lock mags are harder/slower to reload than straight insert >no BHO and bolt release (slower reloads) >reciprocating charging handle >stock not inline with bore >open gas system so itll never be super quiet suppressed >requires lots of specialized tools to do work on outside of furniture/trigger swaps >there is no real 'spec' so parts will often not fit on rifles without modification
Advantages: >can have a folding stock and shoot with stock folded >can most likely go longer without being cleaned than an AR (irrelevant IMO) >way cooler
Nothing really if you look at the big picture. It's a durable, moron-proof rifle that can be easily modified to attach optics. I love my Type 81, but I get why people would choose an AR over an AK and thats because civilian consoooomers like us are allowed to be picky about what we want in a rifle. For a military, you can't really go wrong with either platform, it just depends on your doctrine and environment.
As a civilian, the T81 is one of the cheaper options in Canada that is available for a semi-auto, so I went with it. It serves it's purpose well enough for me that if AR's were available tomorrow, I wouldn't buy one unless it was in .308.
I like the AK honestly, many Western forces have used it as well.
Cheap, durable, easy to make. I'd still posit the AR is a more advanced platform, and the most popular type of rifle in the USA, but AK is a fair substitute.
If you have both, then just use both. These are standard infantry rifles, but there are other variants. Skill is a major factor in the effectiveness of he rifle. We see in modern conflicts that people make use of weapons from the battlefield or local areas at times.
Stoner already fixed it and Mormons did some magic underwear autism to evolve that solution further. Not much reason to use an AK when there's such a leap in capability available.
It's heavier than your typical AR and not widely available in the West anymore, that's it.
Nothing wrong, just a different philosophy vs the AR-15.
There's at least 3 companies in can think of off the top of my head making AKs from the ground up in the US right now. Not to mention the dozen import varieties.
Finland isn't a real country.
>There's at least 3 companies in can think of off the top of my head making AKs from the ground up in the US right now.
And they all fricking suck shit
>doesn't own any of them
Okay no guns, the blackout is over, you can go back to r/ak47 any time you'd like.
3 vs how many companies building ARs ? The availability of AK clones (Galil, Sig 55x series, and so on) isn't great either.
Stonerization of rifles isn't a meme.
Also, who cares, AK's are absolute hot garbage and an AR-variant is better in 110% of cases.
If you complain about the availability of AK's in the US you have a tankie fetish.
Not the point. There is plenty of availability for AKs. You can go into any gun store in the country that sells ARs and they will also sell AKs. Also the AR market is misleading, as most of those companies simply buy forgings from the same handful of foundries and simply do the finish machining. Virtually nobody in the AR market is making their ARs 100% start to finish except the guys building them in ghost gunners.
The Beryl in your pic was as far as it ever got and the Poles still dumped it for an AR18 derivative.
Three is barely enough to have competition. PSA and KUSA can barely put something together without it being guaranteed to be RMA on arrival.
>Czech AK
Dog they designed adopted the VZ58 despite having the TDP basically given to them.
Then do the same thing with an AR and make it even lighter.
All all the AK's in gunstores are either Century, Riley, or Pioneer. That's a surefire way for people, who have never had an AK before, to hate the platform forever.
Capital intensive is subjective. Stampings and spot welding are still way faster and cheaper to pump out per unit if you amortize over hundreds of thousands of units. There's just barely any shop getting that kind of volume anymore.
They're not actually that heavy and their weight and action is closer to the body when fired than a full length AR-15.
t. shot both an AKM and C7
It shoots boolets and makes the person you point it deader.
Good rifle. Built like tractor.
Um how about the fact that it’s the gun used by bad guys?
>fins are bad guys after all
I fricking knew it
The closest shooting range to me bans AK firearms explicitly for thus reason. They're a bunch of fudds and Jesus freaks, but the next range is three times further down the road.
Bring a sub2000 and make them eat their words kek
Americans used these in the ME and currently use them in Syria against ISIS. A weapon is a weapon, it is the person behind it that decides how it is used. An AK can even only be used to hunt and feed your family, as with an AR, which can be used for bad reasons as well.
Manufacture cost is a bit higher due to the short piston needing quite a bit more doodads than its stamped metal frame would suggest.
Quality and accuracy tends to be poor for the ancient shot-through soviet rifles everywhere, but a modern Czech AK can have good accuracy. Reliability is a meme and 100% false.
Overall it is a valid choice, but it doesn't really have any significant advantages or disadvantages over its competition.
>it doesn't really have any significant advantages or disadvantages over its competition
Except:
+20% crit chance against members of the warsaw pact
+20% crit chance against people brandishing swastikas
+20% dmg against civilians
-40% accuracy
-30 INT
For the situation it's a solid pick.
even the Beryl, which is one of the best AKs you can get right now at least in the USA (imported). It's just heavier, typically harder to modify/customize, and less ergonomic. You can get good with AKs but ARs are easier to deal with in almost every way, and are also typically a little more accurate. Free float 14 inch handguard > 6 inch basic handguard any day. Even the great benefit of the AK's reliability comes at the cost of being very gassy rifles. Even if you buy a brand new AK you could end up getting one that's fricked up in terms of it's gas (See: Arsenal SAM5). That's not too say that ARs can't be under or over gassed but it seems to be a bigger problem with a lot of AKs out there. Plus the common fix for a gassy AK is to buy a new adjustable piston which is not cheap.
Obama banned cheap good quality rifles and ammo is whats wrong.
Awkward charging handle placement.
Awkward magwell.
Awkward magrelease.
No possibility for a floating barrel.
That's why I don't like the AK.
It would be better if it was ambidextruous, with better controls.
None really. Biggest issue was trying to modernize it but that's been solved.
If weight is an issue to you spend the extra bucks to replace all the steel with Titanium alloy.
>Heavy as fricking shit
>Very unergonomic and do not support lefties
>Dogshit trigger
>Jams at the first sign of dust (it does not have a dust cover)
>Doesn't natively support most modern ergonomic attachments
>Not easy to swap barrels or change lengths
Other than that it's pretty okay. 5.45 is fine, they're accurate enough for military rifles. The piston system works alright.
AKs with AR parts look like dog shit and vise versa.
>So what's exactly wrong with AK as a platform?
US manufacturers keep copying the dogshit stamped steel soviet poorgay design, instead of the far superior Finnish milled design.
>superior Finnish milled design
>literally just the old heavier Soviet milled design with a fancy dust cover
Here, have some Finns with Soviet manufactured Type 3 AKs.
Except that
>RK's can actually have the rear sights on the dust cover because they managed to manufacture an AK that retains zero, giving you superior sight radius
>can be easily fitted with any type of rail/accessory an AR can be, unlike soviet AK's
>free-floating barrel
It's just better.
>what is a side rail
Side-rails have been standard on all rifles since the AK74M/100 series starting in 1991. If the user wants to mount optics, there are plenty of options to do so. Also the sight radius on a standard AK and a standard M4 is virtually identical, 14.8 inches vs 15 inches. Valmet doesn't even take maximum advantage of the rear mounted sight, because they moved their front sight post back to the gas block.
Kalashnikov himself said the RK rifles are better. Cope.
That was because, despite his reputation, Kalashnikov was a bit of a fudd. He also maintained that 7.62x39 was a better cartridge than 5.45x39. He thought his rifle, as originally adopted was the best, and maintained that until his death. God bless him, but he was incorrect.
The concept of a large piston rifle is fine. The problem is the Russians cannot afford to make a whole new rifle from the ground up that takes advantages of being designed for optics and rails, so you have to go about in in a round about why with zentico or use a shitty ak12 dust cover pic rail. It’s an outdated rifle concept that it’s on its last legs. Even the Chinese have a better/more modern rifle.KMT8K5
*long stroke*
Age, really. It was designed 76 years ago with specific doctrines and materials in mind, and attempts at modernization have proven to be fantastic failures in every sense. The AK-12 is a fricking joke of a "modern" weapon.
They're fun to shoot and fun to have, but the only people who still take them seriously for modern fighting are commies trying to larp as the red guard using daddy's money to buy their expensive toy.
Commies buy psa AR15s or wwsd rifles if they can afford it
if you want some fun, you should go look at the "socialist rifle association" subreddit, it's full of idiot commies posting about the AK they bought for $2K while calling it "the people's rifle"
Top cover sucks, you can jury rig up solutions but all are objectively worse than not having a stupid dust cover and just having a rail on top
Long stroke is arguably worse than short stroke, bcg is a bit heavier
Receiver design is much more capital intensive to manufacture than AR15's for stamped rifles, milled rifles are heavier on a gun that is already a bit heavy
Much harder to make modular like more modern rifles
They are not bad rifles per se but the design is fundamentally antiquated in the 21st century
t. AK enjoyer
Nice AR bro.
>They are not bad rifles per se but the design is fundamentally antiquated in the 21st century
I hear people say this. What exactly is antiquated about it? It's fundamental use is to break the human anatomy with bullets. It does exactly that to this actual hour of the 21st century.
Not him but three major points that have become crucially important in the 21st century are weight, accuracy, and optics.
Lighter is almost always much better and AKs are always heavy. Their barrels cannot be free floated and their action renders them inherently less accurate anyway. This didn't matter as much in the days of open sights, but now rifles should be more accurate to take advantage of advances in optics and should have good optic mounting solutions to take advantage of their accuracy. The AK has neither. Side rail is the best option, but it weighs a ton, is unwieldy, and holds zero worse than a pic mount.
I have two AKs and three ARs if that matters. I consider my AKs fun larp toys and I actually train and hunt with my ARs.
did your aes-10b come with the fixed bipod or did you add it?
Came with it. Bought mine in 2012 on a whim lol.
I got mine in 2014ish, came with the adjustable one. I'm not a fan though and I want to swap it back. The fixed bipod IMO looks so much better. Plus in its shorter length, the adjustable isnt't worth a shit anyways.
Nothing wrong with it, but ARs are superior.
>heavier
>manual of arms is worse
>rock and lock mags are harder/slower to reload than straight insert
>no BHO and bolt release (slower reloads)
>reciprocating charging handle
>stock not inline with bore
>open gas system so itll never be super quiet suppressed
>requires lots of specialized tools to do work on outside of furniture/trigger swaps
>there is no real 'spec' so parts will often not fit on rifles without modification
Advantages:
>can have a folding stock and shoot with stock folded
>can most likely go longer without being cleaned than an AR (irrelevant IMO)
>way cooler
Nothing really if you look at the big picture. It's a durable, moron-proof rifle that can be easily modified to attach optics. I love my Type 81, but I get why people would choose an AR over an AK and thats because civilian consoooomers like us are allowed to be picky about what we want in a rifle. For a military, you can't really go wrong with either platform, it just depends on your doctrine and environment.
As a civilian, the T81 is one of the cheaper options in Canada that is available for a semi-auto, so I went with it. It serves it's purpose well enough for me that if AR's were available tomorrow, I wouldn't buy one unless it was in .308.
I like the AK honestly, many Western forces have used it as well.
Cheap, durable, easy to make. I'd still posit the AR is a more advanced platform, and the most popular type of rifle in the USA, but AK is a fair substitute.
If you have both, then just use both. These are standard infantry rifles, but there are other variants. Skill is a major factor in the effectiveness of he rifle. We see in modern conflicts that people make use of weapons from the battlefield or local areas at times.
Stoner already fixed it and Mormons did some magic underwear autism to evolve that solution further. Not much reason to use an AK when there's such a leap in capability available.
It uses chadstroke instead of troonystroke so western manbabies can't handle the meaty recoil.