AR15: Mud Test

It should be noted that the purported advantages of AK action over its competitors in this regard are rather drastically overstated in popular culture. E.g. take a look at these two vids showing how AK vs AR-15 handle lots of mud: link ▶ this video As far as cleaning, AK, like many guns of that era, carries its own cleaning & maintenance toolkit inside the gun. Although it is a bit unusual in that regard in that this kit is, in fact, sufficient to remove any part of the gun that is not permanently attached. Which is to say, AK can be serviced in the field, without an armory, to a greater extent than most other options. But the main reason why it's so popular isn't so much because of any of that, but rather because it's very cheap to produce at scale , and China especially has been producing millions of AKs specifically to dump them in Africa, Middle East etc. But where large quantities of other firearms are available for whatever reason, you see them used just as much - e.g. Taliban has been rocking a lot of M4 and M16 since US left a lot of stocks behind.

> Compare that to an ultra precise AR-15, if you get a little dirt in it, it begins to malfunction. That 'ultra-precise machining' does have some advantages, though: InRangeTV simulated whether a weapon will still work if it gets covered in mud. Originally they tried doing this buy having a guy crawl around in the mud; later, they realised they could just drop mud on the weapon. AKM link AR-15 ("This AR15 mud test was performed right after last week's AK47 test: the same exact mud, the same wheelbarrow, at the same location, a mere 10 minutes later.") ▶ this video Incidentally, InRangeTV's videos have been used in both Russian & Ukranian propaganda link

What's "fetish" about the M16 series? It merely makes different compromises than AK. And some of them ended up working better long-term - e.g. the split receiver makes optics easier to mount, and the gas system and the charging handle placement make the receiver much better sealed against dirt and such. The difference in ruggedness and reliability between the two is also very overstated - much of it dates back to the original introduction of M16, and the various associated early problems (none of which were due to the design as such). But today? Watch: link ▶ this video

>You have to remember to close it after firing You actually don't ( ▶ this video ). The trick is that the bolt carrier itself seals the action so mud doesn't get into it; most other modern rifles eschew the dust cover entirely and just rely on this. It seems to work pretty well since they keep doing it.

M4 and M249 don't really have anything in common, and the latter is a Belgian (FN) design. On the other hand, RPK is really the same gun as AK in essence, just beefed up. But even when comparing M4/M16 vs AK, it depends. The Stoner design is more sensitive to dirt, but it's also much better at keeping it out: link ▶ this video (Not coincidentally, the AK slit for the charging handle that opens up whenever the gun is off safe is not-so-affectionately referred to as "slit for dirt" in Russian Army speak.)

Both "Forgotten Weapons" and "In Range" are fantastic. Forgotten Weapons introduced me to a lot of firearms history of which I was totally unaware. Things like the Liberator[1] and 2-Bore rifles[2], although with the latter, I'm going to assume that you're hunting smaller naval vessels and/or low-rise buildings. Or you're looking for the fastest possible way to bruise the hell out of your shoulder, and want to set fire to a small pile of money at the same time. In-Range -- which features both Ian from Forgotten Weapons, along with his co-host Karl -- does a lot of other interesting stuff. Tons of different shooting competitions, plus some informative Mythbusters-style segments. My two favorites are the Shockwave vs Double-Barrel[3] and the mud tests of the AR[4] vs the AK[5] platform. Both of those are worth watching, but if you want the tl;dr: (1) A double-barrel shotgun is a poor home-defense weapon, but the Shockwave is even worse in pretty much all cases; and, (2) the AR is a more reliable platform than the AK in real-world conditions. [1] link [2] link [3] link [4] ▶ this video [5] link

AK had its own issues, especially with accurate full auto fire. Adoption of M16, on the other hand, was partially backed by Project SALVO concept of accurate burst being much deadlier than a single heavier round. Originally it was supposed to be about flechettes, but they couldn't make that work. On the other hand, AR-10 was already there with a design that made recoil mitigation a priority - straight stock in line with bore, lighter reciprocating parts, and recoil impulse directed along the bore axis with no lateral component like you get from a piston. So scaling it down to a smaller round made sense. And the design is not inherently less reliable - depending on the conditions, it can actually outpace AK. AK is more reliable in a sense that it can tolerate more obstructions in the action before it jams; but at the same time, loose tolerances and the design of its safety make it that much easier to get dirt in. So if you dump a lot of mud on both, AK fails first, even when you pit it against the original Vietnam-era M16 design - take a look: link ▶ this video link