![Grin ;D](https://www.michaelbane.tv/forum/Smileys/default/grin.gif)
ROFL
![Grin ;D](https://www.michaelbane.tv/forum/Smileys/default/grin.gif)
The AR has tightER tolerances than an AK but needs dust cover and sealing to be reliable.
The AK on the other hand goes with "Good enough" tolerances with that big gap for the charging handle, (That some think a great addition to AR's ) and let the crap and crud just fall through the gaps.
Reminds me of 2 other things
![Grin ;D](https://www.michaelbane.tv/forum/Smileys/default/grin.gif)
1 - WW II arms workmanship, England and Germany both, produced fine quality guns until they were under pressure when they turned out crap like Sten's, and "VolksGewher". Now look at the Russo/ Soviet Arms. They were not that skilled to begin with, but their quality never got any worse even when the front line was the other end of the building. If anything, it improved, which I find totally hilarious.
2 I forgot what I was originally going to type .
Good opportunity to point out that INTENTION is an important part of gun design.
The best example I can think of is the M-14/M1A.
You all think it's a wonderful semi Auto rifle for target shooting.
But to the guy's who designed it it's an abject failure.
It sucked so bad it is 1 of the 2 shortest serving Army rifles ( Keep those damned Lee's out of it
![Grin ;D](https://www.michaelbane.tv/forum/Smileys/default/grin.gif)
)
So what's the difference ?
The M - 14 was intended to be the US equivalent of the German STG and Soviet AK designs, but the M 14 is uncontrollable in full auto, all 7.62 have the same problem 7.62 NATO is to much cartridge for a practical size individual weapon.
There was a REASON the BAR weighed up to 24 Lbs, depending on model.
But you don't have full auto, You don't give a hoot about burst control, and mostly you're just carrying it from the car to the shooting bench, so you don't even consider those aspects .
And it IS a pisser of a target rifle
![Grin ;D](https://www.michaelbane.tv/forum/Smileys/default/grin.gif)