But the same can be said of the M-16. Aside frome some early stupidity, it has always been an effective weapon. I’ll take professional soldiers with M16s over peasants with AKs any day.
But I’ve seen shows do side by side comparisons, as if all else was equal, andthat doesn’t work. Like comparing PCs, laptops, tablets, and my cell. Compare them all under the same criteria, like sitting at a desk with performance demands, and you get a who is best/who is worst. Of course there are other factors.
Same with a carbine, rifle, pistol, shotgun. There are always tradeoffs.
I suspect professional soldiers could win an even-numbers fight over peasants with AKs using a variety of considerably inferior weapons.
Always got a kick out of the TV show Deadliest Warrior. They'd determine which historical warrior was deadlier based on supposedly objective testing of their weapons.
While weapons are important, the warrior is more important, especially when the weapons are more or less comparable. Slight differences in weapon performance aren't likely to be important on the battlefield.