There's a certain 'expendability' built into the Kalashnikov genre. They are made to loose specs so they will fire while dirty... made to fire best from the 'assault' position... designed to be easily made with less than perfect machinery... Rather a 'monkey model.. anybody can shoot one - anybody ( almost) can make one.
So you can blaze away while assaulting across open fields. Fall down in dust or mud? No problemo! Forward, comrades!!! And forward go all the comrades.... except those killed by return fire. But there is strength in numbers! Unless the opposition has indirect fire capability...
The Kalashnnikov design pre-supposes casualties and is a weapon that can be picked up by survivors from the battlefield and used with nothing more than a fresh magazine...
Accuracy meant little to Mikey Kalashnikov - volume of fire meant everything. Mobile volume! As in ever try to fire an AK prone? Prone at an uphill target??? VERY hard to do. Not so with the 20 round magazine of the AR... or BAR.
In Viet Nam, I NEVER saw an RPK magazine that was not extremely beat up.
The AR is capable of carefully picking off approaching AK carriers.
I say the choice depends on one's mindset: overwhelming assault or deliberate, accurate return fire. All the overwhelming attackers will most likely not be killed... that all will not live is a given.
The deliberate fire folks stand a much better chance of surviving a large-scale assault, especially if they have a little indirect fire help like artillery... maybe a little napalm judiciously applied...
I'll go with the AR crowd... I will still own an AK clone of some sort just because I can, but when serious trouble starts, I will reach for my AR.
And! How well has anyone here done with their AK when firing National Match from prone???
SW