The basic design of the AK has remained unaltered for over 50 years. There are some variants made by higher end manufacturers that are very accurate.
The reliability of the AK is undeniable - especially in comparison with the AR platform (it’s main rival). When you give an AK a better barrel and get AR type accuracy with the reliability of an AK it is superior IMO. However, opinions about firearms are much like opinions about cars. Everyone has an opinion based on their own biases and priorities.
I’m probably the only guy on this site that eschews the AR 15 platform. I’m 7.62 all the way,
be it 39 mm, 51mm, 63mm, or 78.5 mm( krag 30-40 just to mess you up).
I’ll buy an AR 10 when I win the Lotto.
” ... There are some variants made by higher end manufacturers that are very accurate.
The reliability of the AK is undeniable - especially in comparison with the AR platform (it’s main rival). ...”
Higher-end gunmakers can indeed produce a more accurate Kalashnikov, but they cannot do it for less money (most such “special” items cost more than most ARs).
And they are accurate only when firing higher-end ammunition ... so another advantage of the Kalashnikov is thus negated. Use any old stray rounds picked up from battlefields around the globe, and you won’t get much of a result to be happy with.
Reliability degrades also in the costlier versions ... the Kalashnikov’s reputation for reliability of function is based almost entirely on evaluations of average to low-end factory specimens, which are fitted with such loose tolerances that their accuracy is very poor (four to five times the CEA of an AR).
You can have reliability, or you can have accuracy. Not both. That’s just the way a tradeoff works.
Additionally, 7.62x39 ammunition has a shorter effective range than 5.56x45 NATO.
Once again, it is shown Americans yearn for defense on the cheap. They yearn in vain.