Great video, really enjoyed it. Please just keep your finger on the trigger while shooting, you are losing the ability to feel your trigger reset,. Thanks again for the great video.
Объясняю, почему АК тормозил. В моментах где затворная рама застревала есть насечки, через которые проезжает и поворачивается затвор. Тут 2 варианта. 1)На насечках, либо между затвором и затворной рамой засела грязь, которая не дает провернуться затвору. Либо автомат хреново смазан. (я не топлю за АК, здесь ARка его раскидала)
I'm not an AR hater and have always known they can keep up, or surpass an ak... but those wasr's aren't really known to be of great quality. I've handled many even in factory new condition that wouldn't even close the bolt completely after cycling it. They are also notorious for not working with those circle 10 mags and most users have to trim them down due to feeding issues... Great video none the less!
WASR are known for their poor quality earlier on, even though my experience with the early ones was good. This is a new manufacture one, and supposedly, they are better made and put together, and mine seems that way. I thoroughly inspected mine before I bought it, looking for canted sights, proper riveting, bolt/carrier binding, trigger slap, etc etc. I tested the gun before, after and on some other tests, and never had an issue with it, just the mud can get in it really easy and cause problems. It seems other AK torture test videos relay the same info.
Time hasn't surpassed the 22nd century it's the 21st I'm assuming you mean it would be the 22nd and we'd be criticizing the Ak-47. Even though this is irrelative towards a degree aren't prototypes invented around 1945?
It is really stupid, just cause, if you are make video with comparison with competitors you are need to take ak12lol and make video with versus between AK12 and AR15 it will be more honest
quite predictable as I said this can happen with any AK or other rifle did not matter wave in Russia in Africa US or on Mars //// but test is really hard
You should only do the ar 15 mud test with the dust cover open. Why? Because everytime you cock or shoot the gun the dust cover opens. During combat you will always have you dust cover open and most of the time mud will be on the gun DURING combat. I own a DD MK18 and an AK74M and the 74 is in fact more reliable, feeds a lot bettet.
error error lmao well so far every ak that's been tested does the exact same thing from unicorn aks to cheap aks all fail in the same way more or less identically so that might lead one to think and just hold with me I know it's crazy but maybe since they all fail the same regardless of make and cost put into it maybe it's just the designs flaws like that big fucking gap the side
Why? Are you preparing for when the world ends and you fall in the water with a mutated shark and you have to kill it with a rifle? Mud test is reasonable Underwater is a novelty
@@royrogers3624 For marines and recon? They sometimes HAVE TO keep their weapons fully underwater In that sense mud test is less reasonable. Why does someone HAVE TO bury his weapon under a large layer of wet mud?
@@thebigsam would you like to see pictures from ww1 and Vietnam? You dont "have" to what idiot thinks you're choosing to in combat but mud is mud and shit can easily get knee deep here and I live somewhere dry most Of the year How is it reasonable? Because you need dirt and water to create mud so expect to see it everywhere but the desert as for underwater being a novelty It is the shit about thrusting out of the water singlehandedly taking out squad with your bottomless magazine is just movie theatrics if you submerge you dont come out infron so someone you get on land before you fight and there are few scenarios that even require being submerged so you don't base you pick for an infantry weapon around what would be great for an amphibious covert assualt Infantrymen need infantry weapons simple reliable in adverse conditions (mud dirt sand and depending on location cold) you dont get a minivan to drag race and you dont get a sportscaster to run a team to the soccer game so take that tacticool "but the furniture can be used as firewood if your plane goes down in the artic" bs somewhere else
@@royrogers3624 Ok, didn't clarify this properly, my bad. This particular mud test is unreasonable, because there is no way 5 big chunks of mud fall on your weapon, covering it completely. If they do, you have bigger problems than not being able to shoot. A less extreme mud test is very much reasonable, that's obvious. I am not talking about cool shit from american movies of 90s, i am talking about real-life shit. Hiding partly underwater is common practic, having your gun soaked after landing on a beach is pretty reasonable i think, there is also stuff like tropical rains and river crossings. These things not only can happen, but already have examples in history. You had me in the first half. But what anything about cars, tacticool and emergency plane crashing has to do with me saying that underwater test is more reasonable than testing your gun by covering it with giant layer of mud?
Сразу Румынское качество и.т.д прям безотказного ничего вообще не существует, поймите люди, это же не пазорно, реально АК лучший по надежности, но и у него бывают осечки, ничего не поделаешь.
So basically they tested a wasr, a cheap copy of a 1947 gun and compared it to a modern AR with custom parts. Either the 1947 gun is just too good or the modern gun is just that bad to even need a comparison.
Yes they tested a wasr a cheap version of a gun that fails the exact same way with versions ranging from several grand down to 500 (as in the expensive and cheap ones all faul the exact same way even the most premium unicorns) To an ar that was designed and made originally in the 50s (the original ar15s are now considered antiques legally) which has also had little changes in the design (as in having a flat top rather than carrying handle or a collapsible stock no real fuclnctionalty changes just ones of convenience) and the ar performed the exact same as every other ar15 tested ranging from veitnam Era remakes to shit generic and cheap builds to more premium builds Funny how generic and premium aks fail the same way regardless and ar15s work generic or premium regardless (Coming from someone who prefers the ak)
@@royrogers3624 There were a lot of improvements in the AR platform that wasn't in the original AR15, Forward assist, heat resistant chrome bolt carriers, more space in the receiver for higher tolerances of gunk build up, better polymers, standard ammunition was also changed for cleaner burn, rate of fire lowered(for AR platforms that has full auto selector), use of better alloys for smoother operation on the moving parts, etc... Modern AR15s incorporate all of these improvements. The AK-47 had no changes what so ever other than the milled receiver being replaced with a stamped one the AKM for cheaper and easier mass production. The AR in the video is obviously a modern AR, possibly with aftermarket parts and the WASR is obviously a cheap copy of a 1947 gun.
@@13thSystem 90 percent of what you said is complete bullshit First off no they didn't change to a cleaner burning powder 1st issue with this is that its not part of the mechanical design so even if they did it isnt an inherent design issue 2nd part is no the military swapped from the recommended powder to a shit powder they had loads of already this caused reliability issues because it changed the dwell time basically it increased chamber pressures and tried to force the bolt open before it was ready (according to those responsible for downloading the ar10 to 5.56 giving us the ar15 aswell as the investigators who sorted the mess out when the military tried to blame them for selling a faulty design) 2nd "heat resistant chrome bolt" no just no youre an idiot some bolts are chrome plated etc some are Nickle boron etc but they are made from some carpenter steel (idr the actual number designation) those new super tacticool materials arguably help the action work more smoothly but mainly it just makes it easier to clean all guns can benefit from getting better parts its the equivalent of getting high end parts for an ak and yes they do exist not only that but a heat resistant bolt again isn't part of the mechanical function its a "hey you guys look at my fancy dancy super gun I spent so much money on to have all the bells and whistles" its about as necessary as a paint job Point 3 "more space in the reciever" ill take this one as I dont know for sure aside from the fact that A colt actually gives less space in the receiver with semi autos (they add in extra material to make it harder to convert to an auto) that also won't make much if any difference considering the point of the design that which makes it effective is that its hard for gunk to get in if you mean gunk build from firing and you think that is going to be an issue in normal use or with proper or even half assed maintenance well your simply an idiot 4 "better polymers" so what polymers magical ward off dirt or something? And keep in mind all that would be poly is shit like the stock or handguard and the handgaurds are universally regarded as garbage a cheap after market on is superior though there are poly lowers but you have to go out of your way to get one most lowers are aluminum 5 "forward assist" yes the forward assist was demanded by the military infact the ones responsible for downscaling hate the forward assist and lut it on simply because the military made them the reality is its the only gun who's had on and kept it all other nations who adopted the jam button removed it with the next model of rifle and dven on the civ market ars you can if you desire get one without it everyone but the military literally says dont use the forward assist if it doesn't go into battery run the action if it still doesn't you have an issue thst forcing it into battery will make much much worse so no the forward assist has been there since the xm16 and its been garbage since its inception 6 "better alloys" no its always been aluminized and steel at best different grades that are stronger and option much like the ak with stamped vs milled 7 "fire rate" literally wouldn't change anything in this situation wouldnt really change its reliability much unless its a massive change its not like they were running them at 1200 for a cyclic but do post a link on that either way im looking that up but overall for whats being talked about its irrelevant The reality is a modern ar performs the exact same as an old ar infact veitnam era clones function just fine in mud Now for the ak "No changes other than milled" Well let's see we will start with the ribbed dust cover you see the made them thinner and added ribs to try to retain overall strength they did the same with the gas tube the also added a muzzle device to help with flash and muzzle climb aswell as a "hammer r**arder" (RUclips doesn't like that word) to help prevent out of battery detonations and lastly a side mount for a scope/sight specifically at the time it was for NV optics Thsts just from the ak47 to the akm Now for the 5.45 variants the 74 is basically the same thing but the firing mechanism is different (all of this based on the automatic FCG) possible to remedy the issue of the sear arm (i think it was) breaking and causing the gun to run until the mag is empty whether the trigger is pulled or not (theres a video of this happening somewhere if RUclips hasn't removed it) The 74u also uses this The ak12 the up to date ak is quite different the FCG has been changeda bit more still looks familiar though it has a 2 round burst now aswell as semi and auto this is achieved with a dual notch rotating lever each time the bolt cycle it allows the lever (im not sure if it can really be called a lever honestly) to cam in a i believe it was clockwise motion it does this twice before its no longer engaged causing the gun to stop firing not sure if i like it over the ar platforms different sized Notch method or not Along with that the 12 also has the dustcover changed up so the ak can now use a 1913 rail system that you know the ar had in what the 80s? 90s? Better late than never and the Russian military insists on tweaking and updating the rifle as much as they can theyre worse than the US government and clinging to old outdated thing Theres varius other changes in the disassembly the stock i think there may have been some tweaks to the bolt idr but it was updated quite a bit Now ending comments All of the changes doesn't effect the aks ability in this test just as those with the ar don't effect it youre grasping at straws really I just wanted to point out both have changed And as for your "better materials" and "better powder" comments assuming those were true and partial truths those better materials and powders are available for all guns just like polymer if they don't make the ak with them thats their fault for not bringing it up to the standards the ar has set update or die basically but those updates are available if you want them just like going with the old shit is a choice however in the end it really doesn't matter having thst special new coating that all the cool kids and pretend peppers are talking about isn't going to dig mud out of locking lugs and thst fancy polymer rail isn't going to do that either The fact that you mentioned that stuff as if it mattered brings to question your reasons to begin with as you're so desperate to defend the ak in this you literally went full fud to try to do it
@@royrogers3624 They switched powder from ball propellant to Improved military rifle propellant for cleaner burn, people can blame what they want a long or short stroke piston will shoot even black powder with no problem Chrome or other alloys made for heat is there to resist steel from warping in heavy use, particularly the tiny parts which can heat up easily and parts where most of the powder burns. The original polymers used were close to fiber glass and often cracked when strained beyond it's limit they switched to a softer polymer that can bend and tolerate a bit of force above it's limits before snapping Gun steel isn't just steel if you look at the original AR 15 the steel used is crude closely similar to ww2 weapons. US now prefers SAE 4140 Chrome Molybdenum which has a mix of other metals in it, it's smoother and doesn't warp from heat as easy as plain steel or aluminum. The fire rate was one of the main issues in the military AR platforms during the Vietnam era. The XM-177 and the M16a1 aside from ammo use, the weapon also jammed a lot in full auto, they fixed it with the three shot burst in the fire mode in the M16a2 but eventually limited full auto AR platforms to 700-950 rpm As for the AK yes the ak-74 has some changes so has the ak-12,107,108 etc... but they weren't comparing a modern AK, they were comparing a shoddy copy of the AK-47 to a modern AR15.
@@13thSystem ok went through this all of it is either ignoring what I said or irrelevant as I said none of that effects it in this test I literally stated the steel used for ar bolts I just couldn't remember the name Fair warning your "oh its not just steel" yes it is just steel a specific kind of steel youre speaking to someone who sees metallurgy and knife making aswell as blacksmithing as a hobby To clarify "oh its not just steel" as I said before no shit it isnt just some random steel you mental midget the proper specification is a carpenter steel the grade of which I recall at the moment different steels have different properties but those properties aren't going to magically dig mud out of the lugs The design is largely if not completely the same as it was before thats my point if all youre gonna do is "oh but they changed the paint and now it has fancy rails it didn't have those before and oh what about the collapsible stock it makes it like 76 skill points better" then just stop youre waiting time and showing how desperate and ignorant you are by completely bypassing the point The point is the very design is the issue for the ak rifle platform just as the ar platform is what makes it superior in THIS test no one gives a shit if it can shoot black powder might aswell say "oh well i can use my guns stock as firewood there for mines better" its just a nonsense point thst only an idiot would make Further more through testing the old ar10 version (the original) runs just fine in mud the new versions run this fine in mud Vietnam era ars run just fine in mud new model ars run just fine in mud Notice every version of the ar runs just fine in mud Meanwhile ever type of ak (tested by the public) dies in mud whether its finish Chinese Bulgarian cheap expensive 5.56 7.62 or 5.45 they all die the exact same way act completely identical Its almost as if they all use the same design If youre mentally deficient just stop youre wasting time if you do however have a point about an serious design change even something as basic and meaningless as the addition of a dust cover (if i recall correctly the original ar10 models didn't have them) then feel free to respond otherwise just stop its pathetic
![COLOMBIA vs. CHILE [4-0] | RESUMEN | ELIMINATORIAS SUDAMERICANAS | FECHA 10](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/TDjN4W3yy1k/mqdefault.jpg)
one thing about the AK is how fast and easy it is to open up the action, clean shit out, and get it running again
Great video, really enjoyed it. Please just keep your finger on the trigger while shooting, you are losing the ability to feel your trigger reset,. Thanks again for the great video.
Объясняю, почему АК тормозил. В моментах где затворная рама застревала есть насечки, через которые проезжает и поворачивается затвор. Тут 2 варианта. 1)На насечках, либо между затвором и затворной рамой засела грязь, которая не дает провернуться затвору. Либо автомат хреново смазан. (я не топлю за АК, здесь ARка его раскидала)
потому что это не ак а румынская копия wasr
gulag
I'm not an AR hater and have always known they can keep up, or surpass an ak... but those wasr's aren't really known to be of great quality. I've handled many even in factory new condition that wouldn't even close the bolt completely after cycling it. They are also notorious for not working with those circle 10 mags and most users have to trim them down due to feeding issues... Great video none the less!
WASR are known for their poor quality earlier on, even though my experience with the early ones was good. This is a new manufacture one, and supposedly, they are better made and put together, and mine seems that way. I thoroughly inspected mine before I bought it, looking for canted sights, proper riveting, bolt/carrier binding, trigger slap, etc etc. I tested the gun before, after and on some other tests, and never had an issue with it, just the mud can get in it really easy and cause problems. It seems other AK torture test videos relay the same info.
+Desert Coyotes Tell me who the manufacturer of AK?
+Юрий Золотухин
румынский.
Патроны вольф гражданский, очень гидрофобные.
Пластиковый магазин - АТИ вроде, и как фитниш снятый предохранитель.
Other high end AKs did the same
It was the 22nd century. The Americans still compared their rifle with the AK which was released in 1947...
Time hasn't surpassed the 22nd century it's the 21st I'm assuming you mean it would be the 22nd and we'd be criticizing the Ak-47. Even though this is irrelative towards a degree aren't prototypes invented around 1945?
@@rechus1783 lol
It is really stupid, just cause, if you are make video with comparison with competitors you are need to take ak12lol and make video with versus between AK12 and AR15 it will be more honest
Maybe because Russian are also using the same shit with the same system released in 1947?
@@cinemanru2358 send ak 12 to them
quite predictable as I said this can happen with any AK or other rifle did not matter wave in Russia in Africa US or on Mars //// but test is really hard
You should only do the ar 15 mud test with the dust cover open. Why? Because everytime you cock or shoot the gun the dust cover opens. During combat you will always have you dust cover open and most of the time mud will be on the gun DURING combat. I own a DD MK18 and an AK74M and the 74 is in fact more reliable, feeds a lot bettet.
Actually it'll be closed until you get into combat also when the ar gets tested open it still performs the exact same
fake american copy of ak
error error lmao well so far every ak that's been tested does the exact same thing from unicorn aks to cheap aks all fail in the same way more or less identically so that might lead one to think and just hold with me I know it's crazy but maybe since they all fail the same regardless of make and cost put into it maybe it's just the designs flaws like that big fucking gap the side
What? This is a Mil surplus ROMANIAN Ak..... Imported from Romania by Century Arms........
Ak fan boys can't handle truth.... Ive owned both. Ar is for sure superior to the ak
Na
Lol, you are really truth patriot
I would have to agree. The ergonomics of the AK alone are enough to put off anyone with a working brain.
fire in water
use a piston ar then
Why? Are you preparing for when the world ends and you fall in the water with a mutated shark and you have to kill it with a rifle?
Mud test is reasonable
Underwater is a novelty
@@royrogers3624 For marines and recon? They sometimes HAVE TO keep their weapons fully underwater
In that sense mud test is less reasonable. Why does someone HAVE TO bury his weapon under a large layer of wet mud?
@@thebigsam would you like to see pictures from ww1 and Vietnam?
You dont "have" to what idiot thinks you're choosing to in combat but mud is mud and shit can easily get knee deep here and I live somewhere dry most Of the year
How is it reasonable? Because you need dirt and water to create mud so expect to see it everywhere but the desert as for underwater being a novelty
It is the shit about thrusting out of the water singlehandedly taking out squad with your bottomless magazine is just movie theatrics if you submerge you dont come out infron so someone you get on land before you fight and there are few scenarios that even require being submerged so you don't base you pick for an infantry weapon around what would be great for an amphibious covert assualt
Infantrymen need infantry weapons simple reliable in adverse conditions (mud dirt sand and depending on location cold) you dont get a minivan to drag race and you dont get a sportscaster to run a team to the soccer game so take that tacticool "but the furniture can be used as firewood if your plane goes down in the artic" bs somewhere else
@@royrogers3624 Ok, didn't clarify this properly, my bad. This particular mud test is unreasonable, because there is no way 5 big chunks of mud fall on your weapon, covering it completely. If they do, you have bigger problems than not being able to shoot. A less extreme mud test is very much reasonable, that's obvious.
I am not talking about cool shit from american movies of 90s, i am talking about real-life shit. Hiding partly underwater is common practic, having your gun soaked after landing on a beach is pretty reasonable i think, there is also stuff like tropical rains and river crossings. These things not only can happen, but already have examples in history.
You had me in the first half. But what anything about cars, tacticool and emergency plane crashing has to do with me saying that underwater test is more reasonable than testing your gun by covering it with giant layer of mud?
Просаженная пружина затворной рамы. Сделано специально. Вот и. все.
Смените пружину . Она у вас села !!!!
ammm... AK Replica! ... Use a REAL AK! No that shit
Это какой то левый некачественный клон Ак,все знают что реальные боевые действия показали превосходство ак.
+Mike Myers Видимо уже не то качество....
+lekseni По моему это Румынская версия калаша, вначале говорили.
это румынского производства АК.
Сразу Румынское качество и.т.д прям безотказного ничего вообще не существует, поймите люди, это же не пазорно, реально АК лучший по надежности, но и у него бывают осечки, ничего не поделаешь.
So basically they tested a wasr, a cheap copy of a 1947 gun and compared it to a modern AR with custom parts. Either the 1947 gun is just too good or the modern gun is just that bad to even need a comparison.
Yes they tested a wasr a cheap version of a gun that fails the exact same way with versions ranging from several grand down to 500 (as in the expensive and cheap ones all faul the exact same way even the most premium unicorns)
To an ar that was designed and made originally in the 50s (the original ar15s are now considered antiques legally) which has also had little changes in the design (as in having a flat top rather than carrying handle or a collapsible stock no real fuclnctionalty changes just ones of convenience) and the ar performed the exact same as every other ar15 tested ranging from veitnam Era remakes to shit generic and cheap builds to more premium builds
Funny how generic and premium aks fail the same way regardless and ar15s work generic or premium regardless
(Coming from someone who prefers the ak)
@@royrogers3624 There were a lot of improvements in the AR platform that wasn't in the original AR15, Forward assist, heat resistant chrome bolt carriers, more space in the receiver for higher tolerances of gunk build up, better polymers, standard ammunition was also changed for cleaner burn, rate of fire lowered(for AR platforms that has full auto selector), use of better alloys for smoother operation on the moving parts, etc... Modern AR15s incorporate all of these improvements.
The AK-47 had no changes what so ever other than the milled receiver being replaced with a stamped one the AKM for cheaper and easier mass production.
The AR in the video is obviously a modern AR, possibly with aftermarket parts and the WASR is obviously a cheap copy of a 1947 gun.
@@13thSystem 90 percent of what you said is complete bullshit
First off no they didn't change to a cleaner burning powder 1st issue with this is that its not part of the mechanical design so even if they did it isnt an inherent design issue
2nd part is no the military swapped from the recommended powder to a shit powder they had loads of already this caused reliability issues because it changed the dwell time basically it increased chamber pressures and tried to force the bolt open before it was ready (according to those responsible for downloading the ar10 to 5.56 giving us the ar15 aswell as the investigators who sorted the mess out when the military tried to blame them for selling a faulty design)
2nd "heat resistant chrome bolt" no just no youre an idiot some bolts are chrome plated etc some are Nickle boron etc but they are made from some carpenter steel (idr the actual number designation) those new super tacticool materials arguably help the action work more smoothly but mainly it just makes it easier to clean all guns can benefit from getting better parts its the equivalent of getting high end parts for an ak and yes they do exist not only that but a heat resistant bolt again isn't part of the mechanical function its a "hey you guys look at my fancy dancy super gun I spent so much money on to have all the bells and whistles" its about as necessary as a paint job
Point 3 "more space in the reciever" ill take this one as I dont know for sure aside from the fact that A colt actually gives less space in the receiver with semi autos (they add in extra material to make it harder to convert to an auto) that also won't make much if any difference considering the point of the design that which makes it effective is that its hard for gunk to get in if you mean gunk build from firing and you think that is going to be an issue in normal use or with proper or even half assed maintenance well your simply an idiot
4 "better polymers" so what polymers magical ward off dirt or something? And keep in mind all that would be poly is shit like the stock or handguard and the handgaurds are universally regarded as garbage a cheap after market on is superior though there are poly lowers but you have to go out of your way to get one most lowers are aluminum
5 "forward assist" yes the forward assist was demanded by the military infact the ones responsible for downscaling hate the forward assist and lut it on simply because the military made them the reality is its the only gun who's had on and kept it all other nations who adopted the jam button removed it with the next model of rifle and dven on the civ market ars you can if you desire get one without it everyone but the military literally says dont use the forward assist if it doesn't go into battery run the action if it still doesn't you have an issue thst forcing it into battery will make much much worse so no the forward assist has been there since the xm16 and its been garbage since its inception
6 "better alloys" no its always been aluminized and steel at best different grades that are stronger and option much like the ak with stamped vs milled
7 "fire rate" literally wouldn't change anything in this situation wouldnt really change its reliability much unless its a massive change its not like they were running them at 1200 for a cyclic but do post a link on that either way im looking that up but overall for whats being talked about its irrelevant
The reality is a modern ar performs the exact same as an old ar infact veitnam era clones function just fine in mud
Now for the ak
"No changes other than milled"
Well let's see we will start with the ribbed dust cover you see the made them thinner and added ribs to try to retain overall strength they did the same with the gas tube the also added a muzzle device to help with flash and muzzle climb aswell as a "hammer r**arder" (RUclips doesn't like that word) to help prevent out of battery detonations and lastly a side mount for a scope/sight specifically at the time it was for NV optics
Thsts just from the ak47 to the akm
Now for the 5.45 variants the 74 is basically the same thing but the firing mechanism is different (all of this based on the automatic FCG) possible to remedy the issue of the sear arm (i think it was) breaking and causing the gun to run until the mag is empty whether the trigger is pulled or not (theres a video of this happening somewhere if RUclips hasn't removed it)
The 74u also uses this
The ak12 the up to date ak is quite different the FCG has been changeda bit more still looks familiar though it has a 2 round burst now aswell as semi and auto this is achieved with a dual notch rotating lever each time the bolt cycle it allows the lever (im not sure if it can really be called a lever honestly) to cam in a i believe it was clockwise motion it does this twice before its no longer engaged causing the gun to stop firing not sure if i like it over the ar platforms different sized Notch method or not
Along with that the 12 also has the dustcover changed up so the ak can now use a 1913 rail system that you know the ar had in what the 80s? 90s? Better late than never and the Russian military insists on tweaking and updating the rifle as much as they can theyre worse than the US government and clinging to old outdated thing
Theres varius other changes in the disassembly the stock i think there may have been some tweaks to the bolt idr but it was updated quite a bit
Now ending comments
All of the changes doesn't effect the aks ability in this test just as those with the ar don't effect it youre grasping at straws really I just wanted to point out both have changed
And as for your "better materials" and "better powder" comments assuming those were true and partial truths those better materials and powders are available for all guns just like polymer if they don't make the ak with them thats their fault for not bringing it up to the standards the ar has set update or die basically but those updates are available if you want them just like going with the old shit is a choice however in the end it really doesn't matter having thst special new coating that all the cool kids and pretend peppers are talking about isn't going to dig mud out of locking lugs and thst fancy polymer rail isn't going to do that either
The fact that you mentioned that stuff as if it mattered brings to question your reasons to begin with as you're so desperate to defend the ak in this you literally went full fud to try to do it
@@royrogers3624 They switched powder from ball propellant to Improved military rifle propellant for cleaner burn, people can blame what they want a long or short stroke piston will shoot even black powder with no problem
Chrome or other alloys made for heat is there to resist steel from warping in heavy use, particularly the tiny parts which can heat up easily and parts where most of the powder burns.
The original polymers used were close to fiber glass and often cracked when strained beyond it's limit they switched to a softer polymer that can bend and tolerate a bit of force above it's limits before snapping
Gun steel isn't just steel if you look at the original AR 15 the steel used is crude closely similar to ww2 weapons. US now prefers SAE 4140 Chrome Molybdenum which has a mix of other metals in it, it's smoother and doesn't warp from heat as easy as plain steel or aluminum.
The fire rate was one of the main issues in the military AR platforms during the Vietnam era. The XM-177 and the M16a1 aside from ammo use, the weapon also jammed a lot in full auto, they fixed it with the three shot burst in the fire mode in the M16a2 but eventually limited full auto AR platforms to 700-950 rpm
As for the AK yes the ak-74 has some changes so has the ak-12,107,108 etc... but they weren't comparing a modern AK, they were comparing a shoddy copy of the AK-47 to a modern AR15.
@@13thSystem ok went through this all of it is either ignoring what I said or irrelevant as I said none of that effects it in this test
I literally stated the steel used for ar bolts I just couldn't remember the name
Fair warning your "oh its not just steel" yes it is just steel a specific kind of steel youre speaking to someone who sees metallurgy and knife making aswell as blacksmithing as a hobby
To clarify "oh its not just steel" as I said before no shit it isnt just some random steel you mental midget the proper specification is a carpenter steel the grade of which I recall at the moment different steels have different properties but those properties aren't going to magically dig mud out of the lugs
The design is largely if not completely the same as it was before thats my point if all youre gonna do is "oh but they changed the paint and now it has fancy rails it didn't have those before and oh what about the collapsible stock it makes it like 76 skill points better" then just stop youre waiting time and showing how desperate and ignorant you are by completely bypassing the point
The point is the very design is the issue for the ak rifle platform just as the ar platform is what makes it superior in THIS test no one gives a shit if it can shoot black powder might aswell say "oh well i can use my guns stock as firewood there for mines better" its just a nonsense point thst only an idiot would make
Further more through testing the old ar10 version (the original) runs just fine in mud the new versions run this fine in mud Vietnam era ars run just fine in mud new model ars run just fine in mud
Notice every version of the ar runs just fine in mud
Meanwhile ever type of ak (tested by the public) dies in mud whether its finish Chinese Bulgarian cheap expensive 5.56 7.62 or 5.45 they all die the exact same way act completely identical
Its almost as if they all use the same design
If youre mentally deficient just stop youre wasting time if you do however have a point about an serious design change even something as basic and meaningless as the addition of a dust cover (if i recall correctly the original ar10 models didn't have them) then feel free to respond otherwise just stop its pathetic