Is it true that Russian weapons are sturdy?

Question

I read that an AK can withstand abuse. That is why I have always considered Russian firearms than American ones

Answer 1

They sure are. In my service here in Russia, no weapon or vehicle has ever failed me.

Sure, the AK-74 rifle I use is not really as accurate as the AR-15 (which I got to use a few times) and there are times when I would rather have the AR. However, being a good soldier, just like your soldiers, I use what I am issued. That being said, most of the time, I perfer to have my trusty AK. Putting 30 somewhat less accurate rounds down range is better then firing one round, and having the next fail to load.

Our vehciles are very sturdy. We can leave them out all night in the cold, and start them up no problem. We can drive them though sand, snow, mud and water, and no problems.

Both countries make good arms, different idea's in the engineering of them, but I would not want to be down range of either's. Be it down range of an AK or an AR, a M1A1 or a T-95 or a SU-34 or an F-15E. I feel your WHOLE day would be ruined.

Answer 2

Oh, they are sturdy. The problem is they are not very sopichated or accurate. From airplanes to side arms. For a close range fire and spray fight, an AK is pretty good. Only the old Thompson SMG is better. But someone with a properly equipped M-16, can sit out a hundred yards and put one round into anyone with an AK. And then there are sniper rifles. Russian weapons are designed for mass tactic's with no regard for the lives they lose. Ours and most other Western countries are designed to defeat the same. Designed for defense in depth, essitanially the old WWII tactic. As well as coordinated attack. They have to be accurate to work to those tactics. So they are a little more fragile. They have to be cleaned right, and regular. But "Mattie Mattel" had a rough introduction in 'Nam. Part from design, part from bad training of troops. She has been really reliable in all forms since she got a few corrections and a chrome lined barrel forty years ago. So I think the latest "16's" do beat the AK. You get real close I would prefer the AK on full auto. But I also would always prefer not to get that close. It is a matter of tactics and the design to meet them.

Answer 3

Russian weapons are sturdy, they also suck at hitting a target at other than close range.

The AK has shite Sights, the Sight Radius is far too short and the Open notch/Post sucks for acquiring Targets over 100 Meters away.

It has no inherent Optical Suite without modification to the reciever

It has no Heat shield to the Handguard, so the handguard is known to ignite after prolonged firing

The Magazines are not designed for rapid re-filling, nor for rapid loading into the rifle

The Safety Lever is badly designed, it makes entirely too much noise, takes the firing hand off the weapon to operate, Prohibits clearing in the Safe Condition, and has Full Automatic as its first stop, then semi.

The Dust Cover precludes overbore mounting of Optics, NVD's

Make Mine M4, or M16A4 anyday...

Answer 4

They can take more abuse. The flip side is that is because the tolerances are built loser. An AK-47 is not as accurate as an M-16. At high rate of fire the barrel of an AK will start to vibrate and jump around.

Russian tanks are also build simpler and a tractor mechanic can easily work on them. Once again the flip side is they do not have the accuracy, armor, range, or safety features that the American tanks have.

Answer 5

The AK-47 and most Kalishnikov rifles are remarkably durable and reliable; they're also quite cheap to produce and fire a more powerful round than the M-16 and later generations of the AR-15 style weapon, such as the M-4 (though some M-4's are in a .308 caliber).
The M-16 rifles were and are notoriously unreliable, subject to jamming, misfires, etc. Advantages of the M-16 are greater accuracy than the Kalishnikov/AK and a more rapid rate of automatic fire. The AK's tend to come with larger capacity magazines, which are (obviously) more popular with combat infantry.
But the American/NATO M-14s, in .308 caliber, are extremely durable and accurate. Though less effective in full-auto mode, they're a very solid weapon and can be very accurate at longer ranges; the M-14 is still in operational use by the Navy SEALS and other select recon units.
Cost being no object, Heckler and Koch makes extremely accurate, durable, high-quality weapons, particularly their rifles. Beretta, Uzi, Galil, Desert Eagle, Glock, and Sig-Sauer rifles and pistols are also very well made. I'd not feel at a disadvantage carrying any one of their weapons; my Beretta 93 was a nice weapon, accurate, reliable, light, and easy to clean.
The finest sidearm in the world is probably the Czech/Soviet CZ-75, but I'd prefer the Colt .45 1911 A-1.
They're very reliable, have a manageable (to me, at least) recoil and can be made very accurate with a "Pachmyr"-style "accuratizing" job, which a number of gunsmiths can do. They're also quite heavy, which can come in handy if you have to pound something with it. Multiple safeties on the Colt also make it (arguably) one of the safest single-action autos existing.
The finest combat knife is, in my opinion, the Marine K-Bar, and Gerber knives (currently issued) are also extremely high-quality.
The M-14, the Colt 1911, and the K-Bar are what I would select in a survival, combat, or operational situation. All are American weapons. All have survived the test of time and battle, and were prized by any who carried them!!
Yes, the AK is a remarkable weapon, generally superior to the M16/M-4, and it is Russian. However, most US aircraft, seacraft, artillery, mechanized armor, missiles, etc are all superior to Warsaw Pact/Soviet weaponry in terms of accuracy, operational efficacy, fuel efficiency, firepower, etc.

Answer 6

I forget who said this but he was Russian

If the West builds an alarm clock it does much more then wake you up, but drop it on the floor and it is broken. The Soviet alarm clock is big, ticks loudly, looks ugly and is cheaply made, but throw it against the wall, AND IT STILL WORKS!!

Most all Soviet Weapons and Systems were designed to be built by unskilled labor and maintained by unskilled mechanics/operators. Yes their stuff is cheap looking. but it works.

A good example is the AK-47. Heavy cheap, somewhat inaccurate. But totally Reliable, easy to maintain and operate.

Answer 7

I'm Russian and the weapons are very strong.

Answer 8

Must be seeing as its the most favorite weapon of irregular forces in the world and with world terrorist groups.

Answer 9

Yes, they may be sturdy, but they are not as accurate.

Answer 10

strong but not accurate