In old bolt action days, at 14 rounds a minute that could mean 2000 days of one minute of fire (at ten rounds per minute) or 200 days of 10 minutes of fire per day (most people fire less, in training mostly blanks, which produce little wear on the barrel, in most "training" it was closer to 100 rounds to qualify to fire each year and that was all you did, thus such a weapon could last 20 years).
Today, if the weapon is used mostly for training the above is still true. If used in actual combat (or more firing on range to get better at hitting something), the number of years the weapon can last without a new barrel goes down drastically. i.e. It was no uncommon for troops in Vietnam to carry 600-1000 rounds. A M-16 or AK-47 can shoot all of that in a day, thus the weapon would need a new barrel every month or so (at 1000 rounds a day, 20,000 rounds are fired with 20 days). Please note these are the two extremes, the vast majority of rifles would be between these two extremes. In the days of Bolt Actions, the rifle could have a usable barrel for years on fairly heavy combat, but today's selective fire weapons would last only months.
Now, the 20,000 rounds figure is what I have read, but even if the number is 100,000 rounds, you are still looking at just 100 days, or just over three months of combat shooting 1000 rounds a day (most combat is much lower, thus the weapon's life is measured in months and sometimes years, but not decades).
Given that most of the weapons have been through some tough fighting and celebration (in many areas victories were celebrated by shooting clips of live ammunition), I question if any of the barrels are any good (I have read reports that non-Russian or former Warsaw made AKs had a much shorter barrel life then Russian and Warsaw Pact made AKs, probably due to the use of inferior steels). Thus, if you have trash, and that may be all these weapons are by now, you throw them away.
I remember reading about Colombian guerrillas surrendering in the early 1990s, and the weapons they were turning in were M16s and other weapons, Careful review of the weapons were most needed major overhaul to be effective, i.e. new barrels and other worn out parts. The weapons retained, especially Israeli Galil were known and liked for being the best weapon for jungle work (The Galil is an AK Clone, made in Isreali and sold extensively to Latin America countries, due to is superior ability to withstand bad treatment compared to the M-17, the Israeli Infantry uses American Made M-16s for the M-16s are that much cheaper. The Galil, like the original AK uses a machine made receiver and thus expensive to make, what most people call AKs is in reality AKMs, modified AKs designed to be stamped by huge stamping machines. AKs are more expensive then M-16s, but the AKMs are even cheaper).
Anyway, I suspect what is happening in Libya is what happened in Columbia in the early 1990s, people turned in the weapons that needed to be rebuilt (i.e. junk), but kept the ones that did NOT need to be rebuilt (the good stuff).
= new reply since forum marked as read
