Re: Piston Rifles Accuracy
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Blackrifle1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thanks for all the input guys. Like I said before.....I'm not here to debate whether pistons are good or bad (I actually like them) But I find it hard to understand when people say piston rifles aren't or can't be reliable when an AK-47 is a piston operated weapon and recognized as the most reliable gun in the world. </div></div>
The reality is that AK's aren't as reliable as they are touted to be. They regularly malfunction in every single high volume shooting session I have been present on in the past 18 years, with one rare set of exceptions with regard to type/country of origin:
The Valmet Rk62 and Sako Rk92/95 variants, made in Finland. I can honestly say that I have yet to see one malf, and I've been working with them since 2005 now. They still suck to carry, have the terrible AK ergos, etc., but they are the only AK variant I have seen out of them all that doesn't malf. The Finns have their own waffle mags, and higher quality brass-cased 7.62x39 made by Sako, which I believe have a lot to do with their reliability recipe. The Finnish variants are also extremely accurate for a standard assault rifle.
Every other AK, AKM, & AK74 variant I have worked with are one of a few things:
Reliable for the first 2,000-4,000rds, then not
Not reliable out of the box
Damaged or defective out of the box
Damaged in the act of shooting within the 1st 1,000rds
The Romanian guns are one of the worst offenders of all, as are the North Korean copies of the AKM.
East German & Polish guns usually run well for 2,000-4,000rds, but will break down if not maintained under professional army standards of weapon maintenance, etc.
The Bulgarian & Yugoslavian guns can be hit & miss, but will age quickly under a high volume or lacking maintenance schedule.
After all these years, the AK has gone from the myth of 100% reliability, to generally one of the lesser reliable assault rifles in the world in my experiences, which have included 11,500rd volumes in one day at times.
After taking a 2nd, and 3rd look at it, I can see that it beats itself apart by design, when you look at the manner in which the bolt carrier group and op-rod slam into the rear of the receiver, as well as the method for "securing" the barrel trunnion to the receiver.
The machined receiver guns tend to last longer for high-volume, and the sheet steel receiver guns are really a compromise in weapon life, accepting that the rifle will not last much longer than a 4,000-5,000rd service life, especially in 3rd world conditions. This helps with mass-production and proliferation to low-income nations, and makes a lot of sense from a Soviet logistics perspective of the Cold War era.
