Let me clarify.
AKs have this exaggerated reputation for reliability: that no matter what conditions they're in, what maintenance they do or don't receive, they just work.
Conversely, the M-16/AR design has a reputation as a finicky gun, that needs constant babying and maintenance to stay running.
Both of those reputations are undeserved.
There is a company called Battlefield Vegas that rents full auto guns to tourists. They shoot tens of thousands of rounds a year through all kinds of guns, including ARs and AKs. Here is a thread on the durability of each gun from the owner:
High round count ARsHigh round count AKsYou'll notice both guns seem to run similarly well. The only real difference between the two is that the AKs tend to crack receivers at the 80,000-100,000 round range, and the ARs don't. Other than that, both break parts. Both require barrels, bolts, springs, etc on occasion. I'm not going to crap on the AKs for that, it's the nature of a heavy reciprocating piston/bolt mass and a stamped receiver that has to take that force, and 80,000 rounds is a lot. But the AR doesn't subject its receiver to the same stresses in the same way, so in at least one way from the outset, the AR is more reliable long term than an AK.
Here's another article about Pat Rogers (who I mentioned earlier in this thread) and one of his ARs: Filthy 14, which he finally cleaned after 26,000 rounds of shooting classes.
Filthy 14And finally, here's a mud test from the guys over at InRangeTV. Spoiler alert: the AR does better than the AK.
AK mud testAR mud testI'm not saying that the AK isn't a reliable gun. But it isn't substantially more reliable than an M-16, contrary to both guns internet reputations. Both guns are reliable. Both are serviceable. I own both and like both, I just don't like the traditional gun shop counter lore about the myth of the "indestructible, uber reliable AK".