<*(((><
Member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2013
- Messages
- 2,747
The test performed by InRangeTV is that they take the rifles and pour soupy mud on the closed actions of an AK and AR and proceed to shake the mud off and attempt to fire a magazine of ammunition. After which they pour mud on an open action (open safety lever on AK and open dust cover on AR) and attempt the same test.
Before watching the videos or reading further, take the poll
Not trying to start a war here, just thought the findings were interesting, and I know this is just one test, so a sample of one is like saying I shot a one hole with my rifle on a one shot group.
The AK47 has long been awarded by many as being one of the most durable and dependable battle rifles designed, and rightfully so as it has been in battles and skirmishes throughout the world. The simplicity of it's gas system and the ability of it's users to disassemble, clean and repair or replace parts has been invaluable I am sure to those fighting in remote areas. Much of it's reliability comes from it's loose tolerances which allow it to run in adverse conditions as well as it's materials. I don't personally have much experience with the AK platform, so much of my information above is from second hand, reading and watching, but would like to get one someday as they have a reputation well deserved.
The Stoner designed AR however is a mixed bag of it's perception of durability and dependability as a battle rifle. Like the AK47 it also has fought battles and skirmishes throughout the world (minus the arctic and antarctic, but it has spent it's time in season to be sure. It too provides great accessibility to it's operating parts for cleaning and repair or replacement. Much of it's perception of it's lack of durability is in the fact that it's design promotes carbon from getting deposited into the upper and lower receiver which in turn can slow down the bolt carrier group's velocity. Most will say and has been my experience if one runs an AR/M4/M16 wet and uses good ammo mitigates much of this issue as the carbon gets picked up by the lube and gets moved into areas away from the reciprocating internal parts.
Here is interesting tests performed by InRangeTV, comparing two run of the mill rifles of each respective design (and one test was in response to wanting to see a high end AK with the same test). I think it shows well that guns are machines and there are situations that can cause issues in each of them.
AK47 (AKM): Mud Test
1:10 Mark
AK74 Arsenal SLR104 & Valmet M76 (5.56x45): Mud Test
This video was performed at a separate time as comments to the video stated they would like to see how a high end AK would fair in the test.
5:00 Mark - Arsenal
9:30 Mark - Valmet
AR15: Mud Test
1:00 Mark
I appreciate tests like these and thought they did a good job being fair (although you could sense their bias towards the AR platform) but it shows how public perception needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
Before watching the videos or reading further, take the poll
Not trying to start a war here, just thought the findings were interesting, and I know this is just one test, so a sample of one is like saying I shot a one hole with my rifle on a one shot group.
The AK47 has long been awarded by many as being one of the most durable and dependable battle rifles designed, and rightfully so as it has been in battles and skirmishes throughout the world. The simplicity of it's gas system and the ability of it's users to disassemble, clean and repair or replace parts has been invaluable I am sure to those fighting in remote areas. Much of it's reliability comes from it's loose tolerances which allow it to run in adverse conditions as well as it's materials. I don't personally have much experience with the AK platform, so much of my information above is from second hand, reading and watching, but would like to get one someday as they have a reputation well deserved.
The Stoner designed AR however is a mixed bag of it's perception of durability and dependability as a battle rifle. Like the AK47 it also has fought battles and skirmishes throughout the world (minus the arctic and antarctic, but it has spent it's time in season to be sure. It too provides great accessibility to it's operating parts for cleaning and repair or replacement. Much of it's perception of it's lack of durability is in the fact that it's design promotes carbon from getting deposited into the upper and lower receiver which in turn can slow down the bolt carrier group's velocity. Most will say and has been my experience if one runs an AR/M4/M16 wet and uses good ammo mitigates much of this issue as the carbon gets picked up by the lube and gets moved into areas away from the reciprocating internal parts.
Here is interesting tests performed by InRangeTV, comparing two run of the mill rifles of each respective design (and one test was in response to wanting to see a high end AK with the same test). I think it shows well that guns are machines and there are situations that can cause issues in each of them.
AK47 (AKM): Mud Test
1:10 Mark
AK74 Arsenal SLR104 & Valmet M76 (5.56x45): Mud Test
This video was performed at a separate time as comments to the video stated they would like to see how a high end AK would fair in the test.
5:00 Mark - Arsenal
9:30 Mark - Valmet
AR15: Mud Test
1:00 Mark
I appreciate tests like these and thought they did a good job being fair (although you could sense their bias towards the AR platform) but it shows how public perception needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
Last edited:
