I think a lot of the stigma against AR's reliability stems from not following proper preventative maintenance, as well as the long debunked myth of using minimal lubrication. 

A single person, maintaining a AR/M16/M4 shouldn't be problem.  For a personal weapon, you should be able to keep a fairly accurate round count rounded to the nearest 1000 that you shoot.  You should know when its may be time to upgrade certain parts/springs/extractors/bolt etc...  I think the problem stems once it gets to a platoon sized level, and people are not following proper maintenance schedules, which is actually pretty minimal. 

And keep it wet.  I'd rather have a wet and dirty gun, than a dry and dirty gun.

If my car craps out on me because I didn't change the oil after 50,000 miles, I shouldn't blame the car. But yet I know there are a lot of cars on the road pushing well past that.  Its still not a good idea to push your luck.

As far as the AK being inaccurate.  That probably has something to do with the shitty shot out barrels, and the "over the head" shooting technique a lot of the bad guys seem to be using. 

Both of these platforms are excellent and in the right (well trained) hands, are extremely effective.

I think the problem is the idiotic stereo types that ignorant people perpetuate.

"AK's are horribly inaccurate and you can't hit anything with them"

"AR's are jamo-matics, one grain of sand in the works and your gun will jam"

But ... but ... but .... these "stereotypes" are all over the Internet!!
And you KNOW you can't put anything on the Internet that isn't true!!

Usually educated and experienced firearm experts will decide/concede this life-long debate using a very detailed and highly scientific method...it's determined by which platform is best represented by beautiful women. The undisputed champion platform is and will always be the AK by far, by at least a 10:1 ratio using this methodology.


















[/URL]

Wow...nice loaded AKs....   

Usually educated and experienced firearm experts will decide/concede this life-long debate using a very detailed and highly scientific method...it's determined by which platform is best represented by beautiful women. The undisputed champion platform is and will always be the AK by far, by at least a 10:1 ratio using this methodology.

Im getting an Ak tomorrow

Not just one too

One of each of them 

I think a lot of the stigma against AR's reliability stems from not following proper preventative maintenance, as well as the long debunked myth of using minimal lubrication. 

A single person, maintaining a AR/M16/M4 shouldn't be problem.  For a personal weapon, you should be able to keep a fairly accurate round count rounded to the nearest 1000 that you shoot.  You should know when its may be time to upgrade certain parts/springs/extractors/bolt etc...  I think the problem stems once it gets to a platoon sized level, and people are not following proper maintenance schedules, which is actually pretty minimal. 

And keep it wet.  I'd rather have a wet and dirty gun, than a dry and dirty gun.

If my car craps out on me because I didn't change the oil after 50,000 miles, I shouldn't blame the car. But yet I know there are a lot of cars on the road pushing well past that.  Its still not a good idea to push your luck.

As far as the AK being inaccurate.  That probably has something to do with the shitty shot out barrels, and the "over the head" shooting technique a lot of the bad guys seem to be using.

This.  The original M-16s were fielded to Vietnam without cleaning kits, and the rumor was apparently widespread that this new plastic space gun didn't need any cleaning.  First impressions last a long time, as the AR-15 can attest.  And I think you're exactly right about maintenance.  I don't have much hands-on experience with the M-16 being in the Navy, but I know that most of my shipmates will tell me what a POS the M9 is.  My response is always the same--our M9s look like somebody dragged them behind a car on a fairly long road trip.  If the US military adopted the AK-47 and the Glock 19 as standard service weapons, the reports of both guns' unreliability would pile up rapidly. 

This.  The original M-16s were fielded to Vietnam without cleaning kits, and the rumor was apparently widespread that this new plastic space gun didn't need any cleaning.  First impressions last a long time, as the AR-15 can attest.  And I think you're exactly right about maintenance.  I don't have much hands-on experience with the M-16 being in the Navy, but I know that most of my shipmates will tell me what a POS the M9 is.  My response is always the same--our M9s look like somebody dragged them behind a car on a fairly long road trip.  If the US military adopted the AK-47 and the Glock 19 as standard service weapons, the reports of both guns' unreliability would pile up rapidly.

If you watched the whole video I posted, you'll note the M16 may not have initially required as much cleaning as they wound up needing.  The US Govt changed the formula for the powder used in M16 ammo.  This caused the rifles to become fouled very quickly.  In turn, that created the requirement for them to be cleaned very often.  Without all that fouling from the ammo, the rifle's reliability rating might have been much higher.

Too bad all we can do is speculate.  I imagine some of our men died because of that decision to change powders ... men who might have otherwise come home.

If the rifle is already being subjected to an adverse environment which might cause reliability issues, why not pile on filthy-burning ammo as well?              

There is more to why the XM16E1 (M16) malfunctioned consistently in combat operations in Vietnam. Just as a reference, Vietnam basically consists of a wet and dry season and it either rains constantly or it’s very dry and dusty. And to be clear, the issues being discussed primarily relates to the M16 and not the M16A1

The XM16E1 was issued in 1966 to units in country, to include Special Forces. They were delivered with no training, minimal and often no tool/cleaning kits or lubricating powder solvent, couple that with no weapon maintenance training. That was a disaster waiting to happen from the start before we even mention the other issues.

Due to the rapid escalation in Vietnam, there was a lack of ammunition, which led to a change of the powder specs for the 5.56 ammo. The change was made without carefully examining the modified ammo while shooting under extreme operating conditions. This ammo increased the cyclic rate of fire, thus increasing the use and wear on parts, which resulted in fouling, blockage and jams.

The M14 had a room chromium-striped barrel designed to resist corrosion in combat operations (a lesson learned during WWII). However, the M16 did not have any chromium-striped boring or room. Couple that with the climate of Vietnam, and you now have severe barrel issues, to include rust.

There have been several documented accounts of our troops being killed by the enemy while their rifles were broke down to clean the shit out of them because they wouldn’t function. I used to have pics but got rid of them. Because of all of the above mentioned, a congressional research committee was established. In addition, there were reports/concerns about of the stop pled of the 5.56 ball round and unsatisfactory penetration. This was in comparison to the enemies Russian 7.62x39 round while under fire with light cover.

The outcome was the XM16E1 was modified in early 1967 and the M16A1 was born. The revised rifle was given a boring and room chromium-striped to eliminate corrosion and stuck cartridges, and the mechanism of the boring and retreat of the rifle was reorganized to adapt Army-A 5.56 ammo. Tools and cleaning kits were provided as well as lubricating powder solvents. Intensive training schemes in the cleaning of weapons were instituted, and a M16A1 handbook (comic book) was distributed to the soldiers to demonstrate suitable maintenance.

The problems of reliability decreased rapidly but the reputation of rifle continued to suffer. Complaints about the penetration and unsatisfactory stopping power of the 5.56 persisted throughout the entire conflict/war. The M16s reputation will forever be tarnished because many soldiers/marines died as a direct result of the issues mentioned, which could have been prevented. Although the M16A1 was much more reliable, it still malfunctioned if not properly maintained, whereas the AK almost never malfunctioned, even when not regularly maintained under these extreme conditions.

IMO the AK was the better-suited weapon for the environment and climate in the jungles of Southeast Asia. Most enemy engagements were close range encounters.



Edit: Added pic.