AK vs AR vs FAL

[Fuzzy Wool Hat]

I'm 52 now and had friends from Blackwatch regiment spend 3-4 years in British Army during which time they patrolled Northern Ireland's "Bandit Country".
The regular British forces used FN FAL against IRA's AKs and were regularly outgunned.
In the meantime, British Special Forces and other security forces used AR15s, CAR15s, HK53 and had no issues with IRA AKs.
As for reliability, in the 80, US Marines found 30 years old Egyptian Army AKs far more reliable than US M16 and the same was relearned in the First Gulf War.

They're big takeaway was that at short to medium range, a battle rifle is no match for an assault rifle...
(The same lesson the Soviet infantry learned when dealing with German infantry equipped with Stg44)

Alex

IRA used quite a few M16’s and AR-18’s as well, didn’t they?

I think when you’re comparing assault rifles and battle rifles, quality of training comes into play as well. There’s no doubt that they both have their pros and cons, But there’s also a lot of evidence such as the Rhodesian and South African bush wars where poorly trained guys with AK’s were being completely outmatched by trained guys with FAL’s within speaking distance.

 

[AlexF]

IRA used quite a few M16’s and AR-18’s as well, didn’t they?

I think when you’re comparing assault rifles and battle rifles, quality of training comes into play as well. There’s no doubt that they both have their pros and cons, But there’s also a lot of evidence such as the Rhodesian and South African bush wars where poorly trained guys with AK’s were being completely outmatched by trained guys with FAL’s within speaking distance.

Basic facts to know:
1) steel AK magazines are ridiculously strong, durable and reliable
2) AK's bolt carrier is 4 times heavier than its bolt which needs that once the bolt carrier starts moving, nothing will stop an AK from cycling

IRA were great fan of all things Armalite but got massive amounts of AKs from Libya and others.
In Northern Ireland, it was a mix of ambush, urban warfare and longer range engagements.
The British experience there was basically convince them that a compact rifle was required for European mechanized warfare and ARs and HKs for unconventional forces.
Israel and France pretty much reached the same conclusion with some specific differences and experience.

British, Israel and South Africa moved from FN FAL to rifles more adapted to their needs after years of combat experience and deception in the case of Israel and South Africa.
In the Middle East, the AKs are nicknamed "The Queen of the Desert" because of its incredible reliability in the hands of regular troops.
Many excellent firearms were successfully used by elite unconventional units but failed at the hands of conventional units.
(I'm thinking of US Navy Seal usage of Stoner 63 which was rejected by USMC).

This theme comes back again and again: French special forces using Sig 550, HK G3 and ARs in Africa instead of Famas.

It's not that the AKs are better in every day, but they just work more reliably and are more durable in the hands of regular troop under adverse conditions.
There have been multiple tests and trials since the 1980s and it's pretty much always the same result: AKs are basically 5 time more durable/reliable than ARs.
(the HK416 mostly solved all reliability/durability issues of the AR15 design except the the magazine design issue)

Alex

 

[Fuzzy Wool Hat]

That's true, there's a lot to be said for the adoption of intermediate caliber rifles. I guess it really does just come down to picking what you need for the job, or if you can only have one, pick the one you can carry more ammo for

Also, I am only one guy who only goes to the range, but in my personal experience I have never had a malfunction in any of my ARs. And though they are few and far between, there has been some pretty spectacular stoppages in my AK. Both gun and magazine related.