Originally Posted by Art Vanelay
The bolt weight idea is interesting. The weight of the action does make the weapon less controllable, though, and and kind of piston system is less controllable than a DI gas system because of it.
Correct. The energy generated by the 7.62x39 is already higher than that generated by the 5.56x45, but it is exaggerated by the significantly bigger bolt carrier mass of the AK vs the AR. Remember that the AK also lacks the buffer system of the AR, specifically the AR's big ol' action spring (the AK's is tiny by comparison) and the buffer weight itself.
In my experience and in the experience of high-volume shooters, lube that rifle up and she'll run fine. Pat Rogers' abuse of Filthy 14 is ample proof of that. I run my ARs wet and encourage others to do the same. AKs like
lube, but ARs need
lube. Like Rogers, Pannone did a similar test and article (though less extreme) on a Noveske rifle with similar results. A little preventative maintenance can go a long way, but proper lubing can go a lot further.
And yes, magazines are absolutely the primary failure point of the AR15. The issued aluminum mags were made to be lightweight and disposable. Big Army and the USMC keep parts long
after they ought to have been s***canned, especially parts related to guns. In most cases, problems with firearms in the military are a result of plain ol' worn out parts. When a soldier throws himself prone, he's landing on his mags; it doesn't take much to break a feed lip or crush the mag body just enough that rounds can't feed. A popular mantra is don't get married to your mags; they're disposable wear items. Pmags, Lancer AWMs, and Tango Down ARCs have the advantage of being significantly stronger, so they're more likely to be working when needed. These mags are even better for civilians, who are less likely to be destroying mag bodies and can easily replace mag innards to keep them up and running in the long term.