# Lifestyles & Discussion > Personal Security & Defense >  Advice for buying a rifle

## Demigod

When I joined this forum I was against guns as it can be but in time I changed my mind especially with the situation getting worse by the day in my country.Because you Americans are definitively the most informed people about guns on the planet I am asking for your advice what to buy.



The rifle of course has to be  be semi-automatic and should not cost more than 1000-1200 dollars.

I was looking around yesterday and found this http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/p...3+16+FLAT+30RD this http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/p...223+BAYFLS30RD and this http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/p...+16+BSH+REDDOT I would love to hear your opinion.


EDIT:I am practically illiterate about guns ( except how to use them more or less ) so please provide links and write in plain English

----------


## fisharmor

If you're only buying one rifle, a lot of folks would tell you that the one rifle you need to own is
*a .22LR.*

Our criminals in America are armed as an army too, even have their own uniforms and souped-up cruisers and instant communication with all the others in the area.
The best defense against them is to stay the hell out of their way, and if they come knocking, you can either die on the spot, or take one or two with you and die when their friends show up... but those are your only two choices.  
I wonder what's different about your criminals.

But that aside, what are you going to do with it?
Are you seriously hoping to defend yourself against multiple well armed attackers?
If there's a problem in your area which requires you to defend yourself, you probably want a pistol first.
You can't really carry a rifle around with you everywhere.

If you're looking to defend your home, and you're not in the country, then a shotgun is probably a better option.

If you're looking for the one gun to own, then yes, it's the 22.  The reason is that the 22 is a tool before it's a weapon.  It will help you survive where the larger guns will just attract attention.

----------


## oyarde

Well  , you would not want to look at what I have been looking at ( a big game double rifle )  If you decide you do no want a .223 , Remington makes a model 742 in 30.06 , probably in .308 as well , that is very scope fiendly and  probably find one for $500 . Previous post mentioned a .22 and a shotgun  , you can pick up a 742 ,scope , a .22 and a 12 Ga pump shotgun for 1k total .

----------


## Demigod

> If you're only buying one rifle, a lot of folks would tell you that the one rifle you need to own is
> *a .22LR.*
> 
> Our criminals in America are armed as an army too, even have their own uniforms and souped-up cruisers and instant communication with all the others in the area.
> The best defense against them is to stay the hell out of their way, and if they come knocking, you can either die on the spot, or take one or two with you and die when their friends show up... but those are your only two choices.  
> I wonder what's different about your criminals.
> 
> But that aside, what are you going to do with it?
> Are you seriously hoping to defend yourself against multiple well armed attackers?
> ...


It is for home defense.Even if  I own a gun I can not take it outside with me it is illegal.I will probably need to wait for 1-2 years just to get a gun permit in any case.

Here killing someone is not so simple because if you kill someone their family is going to come after you for sure.Guns are used more for spreading fear around.If they see that you can fight back the criminals usually just back off.Also because I am from the Balkans a war is always just around the corner.And not to lie I simply don't want a shotgun.I was trained with an AK-47 when I was a conscript and I simply like an assault rifle even if does not have the automatic option.

I googled the a.22LR you mentioned and all I found was this http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...22-lr-sig-550/

----------


## Demigod

> Well  , you would not want to look at what I have been looking at ( a big game double rifle )  If you decide you do no want a .223 , Remington makes a model 742 in 30.06 , probably in .308 as well , that is very scope fiendly and  probably find one for $500 . Previous post mentioned a .22 and a shotgun  , you can pick up a 742 ,scope , a .22 and a 12 Ga pump shotgun for 1k total .


If you can give some links so I can have a better look and probably google half the page to see what means what would be great.

----------


## slamhead

Daniel Defense has some good rifles starting at that price.

----------


## oyarde

> If you can give some links so I can have a better look and probably google half the page to see what means what would be great.


just use your search engine for Remington semi automatic rifles or Remington 742 .

----------


## oyarde

> It is for home defense.Even if  I own a gun I can not take it outside with me it is illegal.I will probably need to wait for 1-2 years just to get a gun permit in any case.
> 
> Here killing someone is not so simple because if you kill someone their family is going to come after you for sure.Guns are used more for spreading fear around.If they see that you can fight back the criminals usually just back off.Also because I am from the Balkans a war is always just around the corner.And not to lie I simply don't want a shotgun.I was trained with an AK-47 when I was a conscript and I simply like an assault rifle even if does not have the automatic option.
> 
> I googled the a.22LR you mentioned and all I found was this http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...22-lr-sig-550/


 Not sure about your neck of the woods , but I have been places where you can pick up an SKS rifle for $100 , you may be OK with that since you are an AK guy.

----------


## Kotin

> It is for home defense.Even if  I own a gun I can not take it outside with me it is illegal.I will probably need to wait for 1-2 years just to get a gun permit in any case.
> 
> Here killing someone is not so simple because if you kill someone their family is going to come after you for sure.Guns are used more for spreading fear around.If they see that you can fight back the criminals usually just back off.Also because I am from the Balkans a war is always just around the corner.And not to lie I simply don't want a shotgun.I was trained with an AK-47 when I was a conscript and I simply like an assault rifle even if does not have the automatic option.
> 
> I googled the a.22LR you mentioned and all I found was this http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...22-lr-sig-550/



for a rifle I would get either .223 or 7.62x39...

SKS, AK47... that sorta thing.. or for .223 get a ruger mini 14

----------


## oyarde

> for a rifle I would get either .223 or 7.62x39...
> 
> SKS, AK47... that sorta thing.. or for .223 get a ruger mini 14


 I am thinking , if he is still in the Balkans , might be easier to go SKS ......

----------


## Bern

If you are 100% concerned with home defense - the firearm will never leave the confines of your home (hopefully you have a range somewhere where you can practice???), IMO, either a high capacity shotgun or a good pistol (or two) is the way to go.  If you are considering high powered rifles, you may have issues with over penetration - rounds going through the walls of your home and your neighbor's home(s) and possibly hitting innocent people in the background.

----------


## oyarde

> for a rifle I would get either .223 or 7.62x39...
> 
> SKS, AK47... that sorta thing.. or for .223 get a ruger mini 14


 The mini 14's are nice

----------


## Kotin

> I am thinking , if he is still in the Balkans , might be easier to go SKS ......



you are probably spot on.. sks's were made by the truckloads and are still floating around the soviet area like candy.. they are everywhere.. I have 3 myself..since theyre so cheap and effective. slower trigger pull than AK47 but not by a ton..

----------


## Demigod

хl.

----------


## Demigod

> I am thinking , if he is still in the Balkans , might be easier to go SKS ......


Just went to the police station looks like it will either have to be a shotgun 12 gage or a SKS because they are not going to give me anything else besides a hunting licence  and I will still have to wait for 6 months.In 1-2 years I may be allowed to buy a semi-automatic  assault rifle.

----------


## Pericles

In that case, go with the SKS - you need to consider the need for ammunition and spare parts, when the situation gets "tight".

----------


## Kotin

Sks.. They are awesome.. The predecessor to the Ak47.. All of mine are very accurate.

----------


## _b_

I like my SKS too, but for home defense a 12ga probably makes more sense since it gives you a wide variety of ammo choices, many of which are less prone to overpenetration.  7.62 would not be my first choice in a multi-family housing unit for that reason.  That said, if 7.62 is plentiful and 12ga is not then it is an easy choice.  Either one will serve you well if you know how to use it and are in that unfortunate circumstance of needing to use it.  The most important part of any firearm is your skill level and familiarity with the weapon.  A fight for your life is not the time to learn how to shoot.

And of course, the correct answer when choosing between any 2 firearms is - get both!

----------


## farreri

My advice is hopefully there's a place where you can test-fire a bunch of different guns, rifles, shotguns, etc.  Then choose the firearm that has the largest caliber you feel comfortable handling, or can afford.

----------


## phill4paul

Buy whatever you can afford. Buy a $#@!load of ammo. Shoot it.

----------


## ryanmkeisling

My favorite rifle is my winchester 243 woodsman.  That thing is very accurate and a great hunting rifle.  For home protection I would get a shotgun, more stopping power. IMHO.

----------


## oyarde

Meh  , I could start with a spear , axe , tomahawk , machete , bow , work my way up . If I got the SKS , right off the bat , may make me cocky and pre maturely declare myself Holy emporer or something ....

----------


## Revolution9

I just bought a Marlin Lever action. Don't use flexpoint ammo with them. It will jam around the fourth or fifth load...dammit! I am getting a 22LR next and then some cowboy irons for pistols.

rev9

----------


## phill4paul

> Meh  , I could start with a spear , axe , tomahawk , machete , bow , work my way up . If I got the SKS , right off the bat , may make me cocky and pre maturely declare myself Holy emporer or something ....


  Don't have anything to add. Just yeah......

----------


## oyarde

> I just bought a Marlin Lever action. Don't use flexpoint ammo with them. It will jam around the fourth or fifth load...dammit! I am getting a 22LR next and then some cowboy irons for pistols.
> 
> rev9


 I got this old Winchester semi auto .22 LR  , an even older Mossburg & Sons bolt action 22 LR with some killer sights and a newer Marlin  Semi Auto 22LR and a really old , over and under 22LR /.410 , none have ever dissapointed .Never had a lever action , accept a 30/30  . I may be able to work on it for you and fix it , but not tonight , drinking a bit

----------


## Toureg89

> If you are 100% concerned with home defense - the firearm will never leave the confines of your home (hopefully you have a range somewhere where you can practice???), IMO, either a high capacity shotgun or a good pistol (or two) is the way to go.  If you are considering high powered rifles, you may have issues with over penetration - rounds going through the walls of your home and your neighbor's home(s) and possibly hitting innocent people in the background.


i had a friend (who, ironically, was "trained" by the US Army as a butterbar...) who negligently discharged a 762x39 round into the wall of a house i was renting, the wall being made out of bricks and cement. 

the round never penetrated through, though, we are talking about a fairly think wall made in the '50s perhaps. 

i don't think all building structures have a risk of being vulnerable to penetration.

----------


## PaulineDisciple

I'd get a Saiga 308 $599 new, and either a Remington 870 12ga or Mossberg 500 12ga shotgun. Also buy some 25 round magazines for the Saiga. The Saiga for battle field superiority over AR-15 (5.56) and AK-47 (7.62) and the shotgun loaded with buckshot for home defense. This has got to be one the best way to spend $1000-$1200 for your intended purpose.

----------


## Demigod

> I'd get a Saiga 308 $599 new, and either a Remington 870 12ga or Mossberg 500 12ga shotgun. Also buy some 25 round magazines for the Saiga. The Saiga for battle field superiority over AR-15 (5.56) and AK-47 (7.62) and the shotgun loaded with buckshot for home defense. This has got to be one the best way to spend $1000-$1200 for your intended purpose.


I am lucky if they give me the hunting licence for the SKS in a year.To be allowed to buy all of that I would have to become the president of the country or just move to the USA.

I might as well buy trowing knifes and learn karate

----------


## enoch150

Well, you know what they say: "If you criminalize the ownership of guns, only criminals will own guns."

----------


## PaulineDisciple

> I am lucky if they give me the hunting licence for the SKS in a year.To be allowed to buy all of that I would have to become the president of the country or just move to the USA.
> 
> I might as well buy trowing knifes and learn karate


oh, I thought you lived in the US. Let me know what you can buy in your country and I can modify my advice. In general terms by the largest caliber semi-auto that have large capacity magazines.

----------


## oyarde

Demi , do they have rules about air rifles ? probably not , you could order one of those now . Crossbows ? probably not... what are the rules on black powder weapons ?

----------


## osan

> When I joined this forum I was against guns as it can be but in time I changed my mind especially with the situation getting worse by the day in my country.Because you Americans are definitively the most informed people about guns on the planet I am asking for your advice what to buy.
> 
> 
> 
> The rifle of course has to be  be semi-automatic and should not cost more than 1000-1200 dollars.The gun is for protection but because the criminals here are armed as an army it will have to be something with a fire power.
> 
> I was looking around yesterday and found this http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/p...3+16+FLAT+30RD this http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/p...223+BAYFLS30RD and this http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/p...+16+BSH+REDDOT I would love to hear your opinion.
> 
> 
> EDIT:I am practically illiterate about guns ( except how to use them more or less ) so please provide links and write in plain English


Hooboy...  Isd the crime really bad wherever it is you are?  Where is that, BTW?

If you need real firepower against possible multiple assailants attacking you at home, I would very strongly recommend an M1A.  They are wickedly accurate weapons and the 7.62x51mm round is very effective out to 600m.  It is semi-automatic and can tak 30 round magazines, though I had trouble with those.  Twenty round magazines work very well, however.

A good M1A may cost more than #1200, but IMO they are well worth the money if your life is depending on it.

An AR-15 in 5.56 NATO is good, but does not hit as hard.  If your criminals are not "hardened" in terms of body armor and you are not anticipating shots greater than, say, 300-400m it may be a better alternative as the weapons are much lighter as is the ammunition.  You can carry the rifle and a dozen 30-round magazines without too much trouble.  

If you are not expecting many assailants, a Browning BAR in 300 Winchester Magnum may be a good choice.  They are superbly accurate rifles and the round hits like a freight train and will seriously screw anyone within 1000 yards.

A question you need to answer is whether you need precision or quantity of shots fired as the foremost consideration.  If you have 50 armed smegma crazies rushing your home, you will need lots of fire sent downrange in short order.  That's just how it is when one is severely outnumbered.

Perhaps you can tell us more about the expectations - the typical modes of operation of your criminals.

----------


## osan

> for a rifle I would get either .223 or 7.62x39...
> 
> SKS, AK47... that sorta thing.. or for .223 get a ruger mini 14


If going 7.62x39 I would try to get an AR with an upper for that round.  No offense but I would not want to hang my life on an AK.  Reliability without being able to hit the broad side of a barn is not my idea of rational preparation for self-defense.  The good thing about 7.62 is the universal availability and it is tossing a pretty good sized slug.  Put that into a rifle capable of putting lead consistently on target at range is the smart bet.  The AK is NOT that rifle.  AKs are good for two things: suppressive fire and making  noise - both valuable in open combat but precision is also important.  If he's not buying a full auto AK then it lacks even that much virtue.

----------


## bolil

Buy an AK and buy several of them- These are for people
Buy a bolt action .22 and buy several of them- these are for hunting.

----------


## GuerrillaXXI

I recommend the AR-15 in 5.56 for a rifle, especially if it's anticipated that the rifle will be used mainly inside 200 yards. Here's why:

- You can carry lots of rounds if you need to bug out. Make no mistake: with the right ammo, those rounds are quite deadly in spite of their size.

- Light rifle weight.

- Very low recoil allows for quicker, more accurate follow-up shots than larger cartridges.

- The best accuracy of any common, affordable semi-auto weapon. A top-notch Larue Stealth, for example, will get you hitting 4" targets out to 400 yards with match-grade ammo (unfortunately, the steel core military stuff is only good for about 2-3 MOA). If you ever have to shoot at someone who's shooting at you, he will probably have most of his body behind cover, so that kind of precision can be a life-saver.

- Body armor penetration is surprisingly good, especially if steel core ammo is used (see below). Even hollowpoints will go through current Level III-A soft armor, at least at close range (I've never seen a test at longer ranges).

- Reliability and durability are much better than commonly believed, though the rifle can't take the abuse of an AK or some other models. ARs have endured some brutal torture testing. You'll want to change out some parts after several thousand rounds, but this isn't difficult or expensive.

- Once you have one AR, you can legally buy other upper halves for it without any extra paperwork. These upper halves can be in other calibers, e.g., the massive and hard-hitting .50 Beowulf, which is compatible with most 5.56 NATO magazines. Or you could get one upper half with a chrome-lined 16" barrel for close-range rapid fire, and another with a 20" stainless steel barrel for precision distance shooting. Switching the upper halves takes about ten seconds and no tools.

A couple of pointers on ARs:

- One major caveat with the AR is that quality, durability, and reliability varies by manufacturer. A lot of the bad reputation ARs get for reliability comes not only from the early days of the rifle's use in Vietnam (when improper ammo was used and other bugs were being worked out), but from modern-day ARs that aren't made properly. High-quality rifles include those made by Colt, Larue, Noveske, Bravo Company Manufacturing (BCM), Daniel Defense, and some others that aren't as well known. If you get a Colt, make it one of the LE models like the LE6920 (I own one of these and love it).

- If you want supreme accuracy, get a stainless steel barrel. If you want somewhat less accuracy but better barrel life, corrosion resistance, and ease of cleaning, a chrome-lined barrel is the way to go.




> An AR-15 in 5.56 NATO is good, but does not hit as hard.  If your criminals are not "hardened" in terms of body armor and you are not anticipating shots greater than, say, 300-400m it may be a better alternative as the weapons are much lighter as is the ammunition.  You can carry the rifle and a dozen 30-round magazines without too much trouble.


Actually, 5.56 NATO can penetrate armor that 7.62x39 and even 7.62x51 / .308 cannot, most likely including the new helmet the military (and eventually the police) is expected to field. This is definitely the case with lightweight compressed Dyneema (ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene) Level III plates, which I'm pretty sure are made from the same material as the new helmets. This is because the 5.56 NATO has a steel core (the M855 or XM855 rounds), a very high velocity, and a small cross-sectional area. It's hard to find anything but lead-core rounds for those 7.62 rounds anymore, but M855 and XM855 are still all over the commercial market. 5.56 NATO also does better against steel than 7.62 at close range. Where 5.56 sucks is against glass and many common building materials. But I think punching through armor is more important.

----------


## oyarde

> Hooboy...  Isd the crime really bad wherever it is you are?  Where is that, BTW?
> 
> If you need real firepower against possible multiple assailants attacking you at home, I would very strongly recommend an M1A.  They are wickedly accurate weapons and the 7.62x51mm round is very effective out to 600m.  It is semi-automatic and can tak 30 round magazines, though I had trouble with those.  Twenty round magazines work very well, however.
> 
> A good M1A may cost more than #1200, but IMO they are well worth the money if your life is depending on it.
> 
> An AR-15 in 5.56 NATO is good, but does not hit as hard.  If your criminals are not "hardened" in terms of body armor and you are not anticipating shots greater than, say, 300-400m it may be a better alternative as the weapons are much lighter as is the ammunition.  You can carry the rifle and a dozen 30-round magazines without too much trouble.  
> 
> If you are not expecting many assailants, a Browning BAR in 300 Winchester Magnum may be a good choice.  They are superbly accurate rifles and the round hits like a freight train and will seriously screw anyone within 1000 yards.
> ...


 BAR in 300 Win Mag , sweet  , I need a little emoticon that dances for that .

----------


## oyarde

> I recommend the AR-15 in 5.56 for a rifle, especially if it's anticipated that the rifle will be used mainly inside 200 yards. Here's why:
> 
> - You can carry lots of rounds if you need to bug out. Make no mistake: with the right ammo, those rounds are quite deadly in spite of their size.
> 
> - Light rifle weight.
> 
> - Very low recoil allows for quicker, more accurate follow-up shots than larger cartridges.
> 
> - The best accuracy of any common, affordable semi-auto weapon. A top-notch Larue Stealth, for example, will get you hitting 4" targets out to 400 yards with match-grade ammo (unfortunately, the steel core military stuff is only good for about 2-3 MOA). If you ever have to shoot at someone who's shooting at you, he will probably have most of his body behind cover, so that kind of precision can be a life-saver.
> ...


 I would agree that at 250 yards or less , considering all factors , hard to beat...

----------


## Kotin

> If going 7.62x39 I would try to get an AR with an upper for that round.  No offense but I would not want to hang my life on an AK.  Reliability without being able to hit the broad side of a barn is not my idea of rational preparation for self-defense.  The good thing about 7.62 is the universal availability and it is tossing a pretty good sized slug.  Put that into a rifle capable of putting lead consistently on target at range is the smart bet.  The AK is NOT that rifle.  AKs are good for two things: suppressive fire and making  noise - both valuable in open combat but precision is also important.  If he's not buying a full auto AK then it lacks even that much virtue.


That depends on the ak.. My Mac 90 sporter is much more accurate than any of my friend's ak's so you are probably right on average..

----------


## Enforcer

> When I joined this forum I was against guns as it can be but in time I changed my mind especially with the situation getting worse by the day in my country.Because you Americans are definitively the most informed people about guns on the planet I am asking for your advice what to buy.
> 
> 
> The rifle of course has to be  be semi-automatic and should not cost more than 1000-1200 dollars.The gun is for protection but because the criminals here are armed as an army it will have to be something with a fire power.
> 
> I was looking around yesterday and found this http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/p...3+16+FLAT+30RD this http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/p...223+BAYFLS30RD and this http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/p...+16+BSH+REDDOT I would love to hear your opinion.
> 
> 
> EDIT:I am practically illiterate about guns ( except how to use them more or less ) so please provide links and write in plain English


There is no shortage of people telling you which firearm to buy and sometimes people end up purchasing based upon what others recommend.  Democracy is the least effective to decide what firearm to purchase.  Having a number of years experience in building rifles and helping people pick what's best for them, there are a LOT of considerations.  Here are my top ten:

1)  You've already decided the price range

2)  You've already decided you want a semi-automatic

3)  BEFORE purchasing any weapon, decide what *SIZE* is appropriate for you.  If you are middle age and not a really stout person, I'd dismiss the larger calibers like a .270 and above (all .30 calibers)

4)  I'd look in several stores before purchasing any rifle and see how many boxes of ammo are on the shelves.  If you don't see a lot of ammo and / or the price is really high, that should influence your decision.  A two hundred dollar rifle with ammo that costs a dollar a round is NOT as good a deal as a $500 rifle and ammo that costs .15 cents a round

5)  Look to see what the costs of replacement mags are.  Check for the availability of spare parts as well

6)  Personally, I would eliminate all the commercial firearms (i.e. Remington as an example.)  Mil spec weapons interchange with military issue stuff so spare mags and parts are plentiful, cheap AND the weapons are more durable

7)  If you are going to use optics (scope, lasers, holographic sites, etc.) make sure the weapon you are considering will adapt to that and that the mounts are readily available and affordable

8)  You may want to check out some manuals on the weapons you are considering, making sure you feel confident that you could easily learn how to field strip your weapon, clean it and do minor repairs

9)  Decide which qualities are the most important.  For instance, that AR is accurate while the AK family of weapons are more reliable.  BTW, don't expect great accuracy from an AK and don't be deluded by hype, the AR will never be as dependable as the AK without sinking $1500 or more into one

10)  Remember: if you buy based upon price alone, there is a more than 80 percent chance you will suffer buyer's remorse.

It's your money, so spend it wisely.

My personal preference is the Squad Scout M1A FWIW

----------


## WesSeid

I'm going to burst a lot of bubbles by saying this, but here goes:
*Pump shotguns often suck for home defense.*

Why?  Because most people don't practice as much as they should.
A gun with low-capacity, heavy/bulky ammo, slow to reload, and requires racking a slide before EVERY shot?  Doesn't sound like a great idea.

There is also the "it penetrates less" argument.  Yes, various shotgun loads can penetrate less than typical handgun or rifle loads, but if you use something like birdshot, it might not even penetrate the bad guy you are trying to stop.  (and don't give me any of that stuff about "I'll just shoot him in the face" with it.)

Buckshot still generally penetrates less than various other things, but remember it does still penetrate.  Buckshot will still go through multiple walls of drywall/wood.  If your house is made out of brick, over-penetration is less of a concern.  

Pistol rounds will go through walls too.  Don't doubt it for a second.

So what are we left with?  What's the "best" home-defense round/weapon?  Arguably, it's the .223.  A "varmint"-type round is designed to break apart on impact.  It may seem counter-intuitive that a very fast bullet will penetrate less, but that's exactly what happens with a fast-but-light bullet. 

And while a low-penetrating .223 round may not stop the bad guy either, you at least still have 29 more rounds of it in the mag if the first one didn't work. 

Having said all that... nothing is ideal.  The .223 isn't ideal.  For the home, maybe a handgun is better for more mobility, perhaps keeping your other hand free to use your cell phone to call for help or operating door knobs or holding your child's hand to lead them out of the house, etc.  These are the kinds of things you do if you can.  If a bad guy comes into your house, unless you have people to defend that can't get out, there's no reason to stay and no reason to try to take the guy on.  You either leave if you can or barricade yourself if you can and call for help.

I'd generally rather have an AK in my hand than an AR, but inside a home where I'm worried about overpenetration?  Not so much.
You can get 5.45 AKs, very similar to .223, but the different kinds of bullets you can buy for it is far less than what you can get for .223.

Are shotguns ok?  They can be.  They are powerful and relatively cheap.  But few people ever mention the drawbacks, especially for pump versions.  A Saiga semi-auto shotgun with a 20-round drum?  That fixes a lot of "typical shotgun" problems.  But a big ol' drum on your gun introduces other factors like size, and if you have a feed problem, you're not likely to be carrying a spare drum in your pocket.  Again, things have tradeoffs.  

Someone mentioned a .308.  If you plan on being in battle from 200+ yards away, yeah, .308 might be a good option. Otherwise, maybe not.

If SKS are plentiful there, SKS are fine rifles.  But it's a relatively strong round for inside a home.  ...but then again so are most rounds.  Again, tradeoffs.  If you can only choose shotgun or SKS, I'd be curious if you can get a Saiga shotgun.  Also, you can put bigger and removable mags on SKS if you want, assuming doing so is legal where you are.  If you can legally mod that SKS, you can basically make it into an AK.

Personally, if I'm in that bad of an area, I think I'd want both a shotgun AND an SKS.  Or, even better, five of each.         

Oh yeah, if it's more about intimidation than anything, a bayonet on an SKS can be a bit intimidating.   Also, I'd hate to say paint the stock black and ruin a pretty SKS, so instead take the wood stock off and put an "evil" black plastic one on there.  Makes it look more intimidating.  ...Which is why things like that have been banned at times in the U.S. ...because they "look" intimidating.  Yeah, such laws are stupid.

----------


## WesSeid

I want to say something about the "AKs are inaccurate" stuff.  In general, yeah, maybe they're not as accurate as other rifles, but in the real world, unless you're sniping something from 100s of yards away or trying to put pretty holes in paper on the range, a little less accuracy isn't exactly a big deal.  An AK is still more accurate than most people are.

----------


## Pericles

Does anyone read what the OP asked and read the restrictions under which he must operate?

What do poeople hope to accomplish by posting advice the OP can not possibly use?

Try to help out the OP by posting advice he can use.

----------


## psi2941

> When I joined this forum I was against guns as it can be but in time I changed my mind especially with the situation getting worse by the day in my country.Because you Americans are definitively the most informed people about guns on the planet I am asking for your advice what to buy.
> 
> 
> 
> The rifle of course has to be  be semi-automatic and should not cost more than 1000-1200 dollars.The gun is for protection but because the criminals here are armed as an army it will have to be something with a fire power.
> 
> I was looking around yesterday and found this http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/p...3+16+FLAT+30RD this http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/p...223+BAYFLS30RD and this http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/p...+16+BSH+REDDOT I would love to hear your opinion.
> 
> 
> EDIT:I am practically illiterate about guns ( except how to use them more or less ) so please provide links and write in plain English



please please get a .22LR if ur only going to get 1. your rifle is no good to you if u get a 5.56 rifle and its just collecting dust because you can't target practice because the ammo cost like 300 dollars per 1,000 rounds.

people who don't own guns are going to tell you what bad ass gun to buy. but in the end, your training and practice is going to make a difference. with a 22LR it cost about 25 dollars for 500 rounds. granted you can only kill small game with it but u rather be better marksman.

as for AR-15 rifles the gas blow back is all the rage right now, either u can drop 3k for the HK MR556 or 1.3k for the sig 516.

as for AK47 u can get a cheap one for 400 dollars but i wanted the good ak, and after some research i learned about the saiga 7.62 due to import laws u can't buy a saiga with a pistol grip but there are instructions online how to build it and thats what i did. cost me 365 for the guns and another 200 for american parts to make it legal. the benefit of this you learn the simple concepts of the gun, and learn what a cocker and decocker and single stage trigger.

as for home defense and the ultimate scare the crap out of your foe has to be the saiga 12
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_biiE4USjFQ
when i bought my saiga 7.62 these were selling for like 400 dollars now their 600. i heard ATF might soon ban them so it might be even higher.

EDIT: also i forgot you should save some money for an eotech or aimpoint. their about 400 dollars each. increases your reflex time and target acquisition and allows you to shoot with both eyes open.

----------


## ryanmkeisling

> Does anyone read what the OP asked and read the restrictions under which he must operate?
> 
> What do poeople hope to accomplish by posting advice the OP can not possibly use?
> 
> Try to help out the OP by posting advice he can use.


I posted what I thought was the best weapon for home defense, IMHO.  The OP said he was gun illiterate so IMHO I think it would be easier for him to learn how to handle a shotgun and utlilize it more effectively than a pistol or a rifle.  He is not going to be out target practicing every weekend, which will be required to effectively handle a high powered rifle or handgun and use it for defense.  There is a much smaller learning curve on a shotgun, IMHO.  I don't disagree with any of the other posts, I just know that in a defensive situation I would feel much safer and able to defend myself with my Stoeger Double Defense than any other gun that I have.  I don't own any assault rifles so I cannot comment on them.

----------


## Pericles

> I posted what I thought was the best weapon for home defense, IMHO.  The OP said he was gun illiterate so IMHO I think it would be easier for him to learn how to handle a shotgun and utlilize it more effectively than a pistol or a rifle.  He is not going to be out target practicing every weekend, which will be required to effectively handle a high powered rifle or handgun and use it for defense.  There is a much smaller learning curve on a shotgun, IMHO.  I don't disagree with any of the other posts, I just know that in a defensive situation I would feel much safer and able to defend myself with my Stoeger Double Defense than any other gun that I have.  I don't own any assault rifles so I cannot comment on them.


The perfect weapon for me, may not be the perfect weapon for you.

----------


## Demigod

First thanks everyone for the advice I am gathering all of the documents I need for a hunting licence ( you can buy almost everything that is semi-automatic ) I have decided to buy a SKS because the ammo is cheap and I like the accuracy ,and after a few months I can apply for a pistol as well.For Assault rifles ( that are semi automatic anyway ) I need a different permit that the chances are I would never get + they shorten the magazine to 5 bullets which makes it completely useless so they are out of the question.

Now I see that I confused some people because I did not explain fully some things and expressed my self badly in others.

First when I said I was weapons illiterate I meant weapon models, more accurately semi automatic rifle models.I have been trained as a conscript with an AK and small explosives so I know how to use weapons  the problem is I can not own an AK legally.

Second when I said criminals are armed as the army,well I meant that part but there is a difference between our criminals and your criminals because here the criminals use guns as a means to spread fear not dead bodies.They use the weapons only to kill each other and intimidate all other if they know you are armed as well they will leave you alone unless you decide to poke your nose in their business.The problem is you never know what tomorrow may bring and this is for the whole region not only my country,today is peace tomorrow there may be war,today quiet tomorrow protests so it is best to have any kind of gun just in case. Statistically speaking we would have less violent deaths than even the most peaceful region in the USA.


And AK's are not that inaccurate it is all down to practice,also they were made with a different approach to modern warfare in mind then yours so direct comparison on just a few things is not fair.

----------


## osan

> And AK's are not that inaccurate it is all down to practice


Different persons define "accuracy" differently.




> [AKs]were made fallowing[sic] a different approach to modern warfare then yours so direct comparison on just a few things is not fair.


It is entirely fair because what counts in directed fire is putting lead on target.  Suppressive fire is a different ball of wax.

----------


## Intoxiklown

> I want to say something about the "AKs are inaccurate" stuff.  In general, yeah, maybe they're not as accurate as other rifles, but in the real world, unless you're sniping something from 100s of yards away or trying to put pretty holes in paper on the range, a little less accuracy isn't exactly a big deal.  An AK is still more accurate than most people are.


I've owned and shot both, both as a civilian and in the military. People that say the AR series is a better assault weapon than the AK series are simply AR owners trying to defend what they personally own as superior. The AK series is a superior assualt weapon. Period. I traded an AR-15 for an AK-76. It is a heavier round, more reliable weapon, easier to maintain, and the tolerances on it are pretty open allowing for ease of replacing parts.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Don't overlook the Ruger Mini-14.  Much easier on a budget, just as effective, and much less frightening to the knicker-twisters.  You don't really want an AR platform unless you are going to invest at least $1400.  A high quality AR may be one of the best investments you ever make, but a budget AR not so much.

AK is even 'scarier looking' than an AR to people "in the know."

A Ruger Mini comes across as a 'normal hunting rifle' so you don't freak anybody out, takes the same detachable box magazine as the AR in semiautomatic so you are just as effective as the AR platform, they are crazy reliable being simply a scaled down M-14, and you can get a good one for $600 that will last 100 years.  So it's really win-win-win.  

Plus, if 5.56 / .223 is not powerful enough in the Ruger Mini-14, you can always step up to the Ruger Mini-30 in .308 / 7.62 NATO and have yourself a great deer gun.

I'm just saying, don't overlook the Ruger Mini.  There are a wealth of advantages which the Mini will provide that you may be unaware of.  If you aren't going to sink $1400 or more into an AR platform to get the real quality, then drop $700 into a Ruger Mini and get the quality without scaring the people around you (and the authorities) half to death.

----------


## oyarde

> First thanks everyone for the advice I am gathering all of the documents I need for a hunting licence ( you can buy almost everything that is semi-automatic ) I have decided to buy a SKS because the ammo is cheap and I like the accuracy ,and after a few months I can apply for a pistol as well.For Assault rifles ( that are semi automatic anyway ) I need a different permit that the chances are I would never get + they shorten the magazine to 5 bullets which makes it completely useless so they are out of the question.
> 
> Now I see that I confused some people because I did not explain fully some things and expressed my self badly in others.
> 
> First when I said I was weapons illiterate I meant weapon models, more accurately semi automatic rifle models.I have been trained as a conscript with an AK and small explosives so I know how to use weapons  the problem is I can not own an AK legally.
> 
> Second when I said criminals are armed as the army,well I meant that part but there is a difference between our criminals and your criminals because here the criminals use guns as a means to spread fear not dead bodies.They use the weapons only to kill each other and intimidate all other if they know you are armed as well they will leave you alone unless you decide to poke your nose in their business.The problem is you never know what tomorrow may bring and this is for the whole region not only my country,today is peace tomorrow there may be war,today quiet tomorrow protests so it is best to have any kind of gun just in case. Statistically speaking we would have less violent deaths than even the most peaceful region in the USA.
> 
> 
> And AK's are not that inaccurate it is all down to practice,also they were made fallowing a different approach to modern warfare then yours so direct comparison on just a few things is not fair.


 Good Luck , have fun Demi .

----------


## psi2941

I didn't read the entire thread but if this thread is about ak vs ar, i own both and if i was stuck in an "urban setting" (targets less than 100 yards) hands down AK. The fact, i know AKs have no problem punching trough walls and concrete. I would prefer an AR in a wide open area where targets are more than 100 yards because the AK bullets drop really fast after 100 yards because the bullet is much heavier but that doesn't matter much in a close spray and pray environment.

----------


## oyarde

> I didn't read the entire thread but if this thread is about ak vs ar, i own both and if i was stuck in an "urban setting" (targets less than 100 yards) hands down AK. The fact, i know AKs have no problem punching trough walls and concrete. I would prefer an AR in a wide open area where targets are more than 100 yards because the AK bullets drop really fast after 100 yards because the bullet is much heavier but that doesn't matter much in a close spray and pray environment.


 May as well read it all , it is not that long

----------


## psi2941

> May as well read it all , it is not that long


y and take advice from people who only own one of the gun or none? their both great guns in the end you can't go wrong with either one. they both have the service history and have been battle tested. but in my "opinion" the aK is a better weapon when i say ak is better, doesn't mean the AR sucks. just for the cost/power/reliability you can't go wrong.

however one thing i really hate about the ak is, you have to use a side mount that looks really heavy to mount a eotech or the hand guard rail which is too hard from the eye

----------


## twisted

Well, while everyone should START with a .22lr, either rifle or pistol or both, it need not remain that way. While Jonathan Ciener was indicted for fraud and you should NOT order your .22lr conversion unit from his company, there are many thousands of them out there, so some "want ads" posted on some gun forums, like GunBroker.com or CSP forums, or thefiringline.com or thehighroad.org should get you one. The one for the 223 AR-15 is $150, but with only a 10 rd magazine. the 30 rd mags are expensive, but worth it in my book. The caliber swap takes but 20 seconds, the groups are 2" or better at 50 yds, the POI of the .22lr bullets on target will be within 2" of the point of impact of the 223 bullets (at 50 yds.) The unit weighs but  3/4 lb and is quite durable. Some need a bit of tweaking to be reliable in a given AR-15.  I would get the M4 variant, with the short barrel and handguards and the telescoping stock. In 5 seconds, it takes down into 2 (concealable in a pack) "halves", and it can reassembled and fired in 10 seconds or less.  You simply leave a rd in the chamber and leave a mag in the lower receiver. 2 "captive" pushpins serve to dis and re-assemble the gun. Drop in trigger jobs, luminous sight inserts, subsonic 127 gr  223 ammo, a threaded barrel, available night scopes, target designators, electronic sights, etc, make the M4 by far the most versatile pc out there. A 24-26" barreled upper receiver quickly converts this carbine into a 600 yd sniper-match rifle, too. :-)

----------


## Intoxiklown

> I didn't read the entire thread but if this thread is about ak vs ar, i own both and if i was stuck in an "urban setting" (targets less than 100 yards) hands down AK. The fact, i know AKs have no problem punching trough walls and concrete. I would prefer an AR in a wide open area where targets are more than 100 yards because the AK bullets drop really fast after 100 yards because the bullet is much heavier but that doesn't matter much in a close spray and pray environment.


This is exactly what I'm talking about. I've shot both (as a civilian and as military), and owned both. I traded my AR for an AK, although I went with the AK-76 instead of the 47, or even the 74. People get so hung up on this accuracy at distance crap when talking about assault rifles, they are forgetting what an assault rifle is built for. And as far as assault rifles go, when all things are considered, the AK is a superior weapon. The only reason NATO doesn't use the AK series is because the 7.62x39mm is considered an inhumane round by NATO. And quite honestly, when people start talking about "sniping" targets at 400 yards with an assault weapon, I ignore anything else that follows. If you want to engage targets at that distance, either you use a high powered rifle, and make your shots count, or all you are doing is giving away your position when you probably shouldn't be. Almost ALL combat happens at ranges of less than 100 yards with small arms, which is why you want reliability, power, durability, and ease of use. You don't get to line up your shots with sandbags for support at "aim for the sweet spot" shots at close quarters like that. 

And while the AR (M16, M4) series has made leaps and bounds in design improvements, when stacked up against the AK series, it is simply outmatched. People need to realize there are more factors when speaking to ASSAULT rifles than simply distance accuracy. And even then, it's not like an AK is that much less accurate than the AR series. I put an average of 50,000 rounds down range every year, and have already put about 20,000 through my new AK, and I can put a very nice group together at 250 yards with it. Of course, I didn't get the weapon for that kind of shooting either. With the exception of a rifle I just purchased, all my weapons are geared towards close engagement style shooting.

----------


## GuerrillaXXI

> This is exactly what I'm talking about. I've shot both (as a civilian and as military), and owned both. I traded my AR for an AK, although I went with the AK-76 instead of the 47, or even the 74. People get so hung up on this accuracy at distance crap when talking about assault rifles, they are forgetting what an assault rifle is built for.


The AK was built for spray and pray. That doesn't mean it's the best way to use the rifle, especially if you're not using it in the context of a conventional war.




> And as far as assault rifles go, when all things are considered, the AK is a superior weapon.


In durability and ruggedness, yes, the AK is superior. It's also a lot easier to clean and maintain. It can be neglected. But it's inferior in every other way.




> The only reason NATO doesn't use the AK series is because the 7.62x39mm is considered an inhumane round by NATO.


That's simply incorrect. In fact, 5.56 FMJ does more damage in tissue than 7.62x39 FMJ. Look at some wound profiles of the two rounds. The AK penetrates a lot further before yawing, so it tends to just poke clean holes in people like a handgun round. 5.56 yaws more quickly and then fragments, making a big mess:

7.62x39 FMJ wound profile: http://www.firearmstactical.com/imag...20762x39mm.jpg
5.56x45 FMJ wound profile: http://www.firearmstactical.com/imag...files/M855.jpg

Here's wound ballistics expert Martin Fackler on AK wounding effectiveness:

_"Most full-metal-jacketed AK-47 bullets do not deform significantly on striking the body, unless they strike bone. They characteristically travel point-forward until they penetrate 9 to 10 inches of tissue (if a bullet yaws, turning sideways during its tissue path, it causes increased disruption). This means that most AK-47 shots will pass through the body causing no greater damage that produced by handgun bullets."_

http://kalashnikov.guns.ru/wwwboard/...ages/1359.html




> And quite honestly, when people start talking about "sniping" targets at 400 yards with an assault weapon, I ignore anything else that follows. If you want to engage targets at that distance, either you use a high powered rifle, and make your shots count, or all you are doing is giving away your position when you probably shouldn't be.


Targets can absolutely be hit at 400 yards with an accurate assault rifle, especially with optics. And if you're outnumbered, you had better keep your distance from your enemy whenever possible, picking him off from cover.

It would be nice to have one rifle for close quarters and one for 400+ yards, but it's best to carry one rifle that can do both. For an assault/battle rifle, that means something in 5.56, .308, or maybe one of the newer calibers like 6.5 Grendel if ammo availability isn't a problem. 7.62x39 is only good for close range because it has a crappy ballistic coefficient. It's not as versatile.




> Almost ALL combat happens at ranges of less than 100 yards with small arms...


In the conventional combat of wars past, yes (of course it depends on the terrain, too). That doesn't mean the lone person or small group has to close with armed adversaries, especially if the latter are more numerous and/or have more firepower. In that case, you want to be out of the range of their weapons but still have them in range of yours. 5.56 easily outranges 7.62x39.




> ...which is why you want reliability, power, durability, and ease of use.


Reliability goes to the AK, but not by much. Durability goes to the AK. Power is comparable, but lethality goes to the AR if FMJ rounds are used, especially if body armor is in play. Ease of use definitely goes to the AR: it's lighter, more ergonomic, locks the bolt back on the last round of a mag, makes quick mag changes easier, is more controllable in rapid fire, etc.




> You don't get to line up your shots with sandbags for support at "aim for the sweet spot" shots at close quarters like that.


No, but you'd better be able to penetrate their armor. 5.56 NATO penetrates body armor better than lead-core 7.62x39. There is currently lightweight polyethylene head, face, and torso armor (and maybe even leg armor) out there that can stop lead core 7.62x39 cold. 5.56 green tip punches through. Also, lead core 5.56 punches through hardened steel better than lead core 7.62x39.

Where 7.62x39 does better than 5.56 NATO is against automobile glass and many common building materials (like brick and wood). This is the trade-off. Personally, I think it's more important to be able to punch through armor than through glass, brick, and wood.

If you have access to REAL armor-piercing 7.62x39 (not just the mild steel core stuff), then I agree that you are better off with the AK for close-range fighting. And if you know where to buy such ammo (or bullets for handloading), please let me know!

If you don't have such AP ammo for the AK, then 5.56 NATO (M855 or XM855) is definitely better than 7.62x39 at close range.




> And while the AR (M16, M4) series has made leaps and bounds in design improvements, when stacked up against the AK series, it is simply outmatched. People need to realize there are more factors when speaking to ASSAULT rifles than simply distance accuracy. And even then, it's not like an AK is that much less accurate than the AR series. I put an average of 50,000 rounds down range every year, and have already put about 20,000 through my new AK, and I can put a very nice group together at 250 yards with it. Of course, I didn't get the weapon for that kind of shooting either. With the exception of a rifle I just purchased, all my weapons are geared towards close engagement style shooting.


I'm lucky to have a great AK, too. I haven't fired it for groups, but it's perfectly reliable and seems very accurate. I love the thing.

Still, it's much heavier than an AR, and so is the 7.62x39 ammo and mags. I don't have AP ammo for it, so my AR penetrates body armor better. My AR has never malfunctioned in thousands of rounds, many of them rapid fire. And AR durability is often underestimated. Take a look at this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCBcV2Nb2Wo

----------


## Intoxiklown

> The AK was built for spray and pray. That doesn't mean it's the best way to use the rifle, especially if you're not using it in the context of a conventional war.


The AK was not built for this. It's a heavier round. It was meant for true first shot placement, using a heavier and more hard hitting round.




> In durability and ruggedness, yes, the AK is superior. It's also a lot easier to clean and maintain. It can be neglected. But it's inferior in every other way.


The cons of the AK series is weight of the weapon, and more recoil at full auto, and loss of accuracy at distance shooting when compared to the AR. However the pros of it are reliability in all weather. Heavier round. Much more durable, thereby can be counted on to shoot when you need it to shoot. And more penetration. I'd like you to elaborate on what you consider inferior about that.




> That's simply incorrect. In fact, 5.56 FMJ does more damage in tissue than 7.62x39 FMJ. Look at some wound profiles of the two rounds. The AK penetrates a lot further before yawing, so it tends to just poke clean holes in people like a handgun round. 5.56 yaws more quickly and then fragments, making a big mess:
> 
> 7.62x39 FMJ wound profile: http://www.firearmstactical.com/imag...20762x39mm.jpg
> 5.56x45 FMJ wound profile: http://www.firearmstactical.com/imag...files/M855.jpg
> 
> Here's wound ballistics expert Martin Fackler on AK wounding effectiveness:
> 
> _"Most full-metal-jacketed AK-47 bullets do not deform significantly on striking the body, unless they strike bone. They characteristically travel point-forward until they penetrate 9 to 10 inches of tissue (if a bullet yaws, turning sideways during its tissue path, it causes increased disruption). This means that most AK-47 shots will pass through the body causing no greater damage that produced by handgun bullets."_
> 
> http://kalashnikov.guns.ru/wwwboard/...ages/1359.html


I'm aware. It's called a tumbler round. You get that with a lighter round. What you might want to consider is a lot of things can cause that tumbling, like a tree branch, whereas a 7.62x39mm will punch through. Your argument is missing a very basic fact of the different ballistics of the two rounds, and something that actually lends more credence to why the 7.62 makes for a better round. More so, the tumble effect is not guarnateed with the 5.56 meaning that comparison is very biased. In all equal tests, the 7.62 makes a larger entry wound, and a larger exit wound.  





> Targets can absolutely be hit at 400 yards with an accurate assault rifle, especially with optics. And if you're outnumbered, you had better keep your distance from your enemy whenever possible, picking him off from cover.
> 
> It would be nice to have one rifle for close quarters and one for 400+ yards, but it's best to carry one rifle that can do both. For an assault/battle rifle, that means something in 5.56, .308, or maybe one of the newer calibers like 6.5 Grendel if ammo availability isn't a problem. 7.62x39 is only good for close range because it has a crappy ballistic coefficient. It's not as versatile.


I never said targets couldn't be hit from that range. I said to engage targets at that distance with an assault weapon is foolish. And you are talking about tactics they teach basic infantrymen NOT to use. Make no mistake about it. If you engage a larger, better armed force at that distance with an assault rifle, all you are going to do is give them your position. They will flank you. They will kill you. 




> In the conventional combat of wars past, yes (of course it depends on the terrain, too). That doesn't mean the lone person or small group has to close with armed adversaries, especially if the latter are more numerous and/or have more firepower. In that case, you want to be out of the range of their weapons but still have them in range of yours. 5.56 easily outranges 7.62x39.


Again, if you try to play sniper with a AR-15 against a larger and well armed group, you are going to die. All small arms combat happens at close quarters for a reason. Because that's what small arms are designed for. I mean...where are you getting this garbage from?




> Reliability goes to the AK, but not by much. Durability goes to the AK. Power is comparable, but lethality goes to the AR if FMJ rounds are used, especially if body armor is in play. Ease of use definitely goes to the AR: it's lighter, more ergonomic, locks the bolt back on the last round of a mag, makes quick mag changes easier, is more controllable in rapid fire, etc.


Lethality goes to the much smaller and faster 5.56???? NATO prefers the 5.56 because it is less recoil at full auto, allowing soldiers to get quick second shot placement, as well as carry more ammo since the weapon was designed around the "spray and pray" mantra. They are already talking about looking for a middle of the road caliber like the 7mm, to try to match the killing power of the 7.62 used by enemy forces.




> No, but you'd better be able to penetrate their armor. 5.56 NATO penetrates body armor better than lead-core 7.62x39. There is currently lightweight polyethylene head, face, and torso armor (and maybe even leg armor) out there that can stop lead core 7.62x39 cold. 5.56 green tip punches through. Also, lead core 5.56 punches through hardened steel better than lead core 7.62x39.
> 
> Where 7.62x39 does better than 5.56 NATO is against automobile glass and many common building materials (like brick and wood). This is the trade-off. Personally, I think it's more important to be able to punch through armor than through glass, brick, and wood.


We've had this talk before. The trauma plates in body armor can stop a rifle round, but not the "soft armor". It won't stop either round, and only has this chance at distances. And then, the 7.62 is going to cause MUCH more blunt force trauma. We're talking breaking your ribs trauma. Soft armor is good for pistol rounds, and that's it. And that is Level I, II, or III. Also, you're trying to compare regular lead 7.62 rounds to green tip (ballistic tip) 5.56? What do you think a ballistic tip in a 7.62x39mm will do? 





> If you have access to REAL armor-piercing 7.62x39 (not just the mild steel core stuff), then I agree that you are better off with the AK for close-range fighting. And if you know where to buy such ammo (or bullets for handloading), please let me know!
> 
> If you don't have such AP ammo for the AK, then 5.56 NATO (M855 or XM855) is definitely better than 7.62x39 at close range.


I'm sorry, but you're out of your mind if you truly think the 5.56 is a "harder hitting round for close quarters" than the 7.62. 




> I'm lucky to have a great AK, too. I haven't fired it for groups, but it's perfectly reliable and seems very accurate. I love the thing.
> 
> Still, it's much heavier than an AR, and so is the 7.62x39 ammo and mags. I don't have AP ammo for it, so my AR penetrates body armor better. My AR has never malfunctioned in thousands of rounds, many of them rapid fire. And AR durability is often underestimated. Take a look at this video:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCBcV2Nb2Wo


I don't need to watch the video. I've shot the M16, the M4, and civilian ARs. I know what these weapons will do. There is a reason I jumped on the chance to trade my AR for the AK. I want an assault weapon that I can use for a club if I need to, bury it in the mud, swim underwater with it, and know I can then start throwing lead with it and not miss a beat. The AR design can not promise me that. I'm not worried about being accurate at 400+ yards with it, as if I have that kind of distance, I'm going to fall back and get out of there. I'm not worried about being able to carry 1/3 more ammo, because if I shoot, I'm going to hit my target. And using a scaled down .308 round in the 7.62x39mm, I know that because of my well placed first shot that man is now down. Even if I hit the trauma plate in his armor, I have hit him hard enough that he is still down for a few minutes. 

I'm used to having the argument concerning accuracy, but honestly you are saying things I've never heard anyone in my life say.

----------


## Pericles

For the OP, I suggest the SKS over the shotgun for the following reasons:

(1) Ammunition supply - it appears to me that 7.62 x 39 ammunition is still widely available in your part of the world, shotgun ammunition is more "exotic". You need to be able to feed the machine
(2) Multiple target engagement - most "home defense" scenarios using shotguns seem to focus on one or two attackers. Land pirates will probably travel in larger groups, making semi-auto much more useful than manual action to load.

For the rest of the AK / AR debate crowd, a repost from late 2010:

Taking the guys out for a couple of exercises got the com bloc weapons fans educated on our style of warfare.

Exercise  1: Convoy ambush consisting of 5 vehicles with 4 riders each  (20  targets represented by 20 balloons of 6 inch diameter representing  the  kill zone of a head shot).  Task is for a squad to hit all 20 in  less  than 15 seconds. A squad with ARs could perform the task easily,  the  squad with the com bloc weapons could not. When the com bloc  weapons  were replaced with ARs, the same guys could cut 40% off of  their time.

Exercise  2: A squad defends against an attacking platoon, again  represented by 6  inch diameter balloons.  The 100% AR squad could  accomplish the task in  90 seconds, the squad with com bloc weapons  needed almost 150 seconds.

If  your goal is accurate and rapid fire, the com bloc semi autos don't  do  the job as well as the AR platform, and we have all of our guys with  com  bloc weapons looking to unload them - and are buying AR parts.  Seeing is  believing when it comes to the relationship between tactics  and  weapons.

We train on rapid and accurate fire for the following reasons:

(A) Most effective in stopping the threat.
(B) Causes minimal damage to the equipment to be captured
(C) Minimizes the amount of time your opponent has to react and maneuver against you.
(D) Minimizes ammunition expenditure - the engagements are over before anybody goes through half of a 30 round magazine.                         


There are guys at Camp Mackall who can walk in to the weapons room, and use anything they want for their tasks, you see guys walk out with FAL varients, M16 varients, and the occasional special purpose tool, but never an AK. For an individual fighter, the ergonomics of the AK suck. Two motions to eject and two motions to insert magazine. Have to take weapon off target or off trigger to load, and the bolt does not lock to the rear when magazine empty, so a magazine change requires four motions, and taking the weapon off target to load.

Not to mention that no major military in the world uses the 7.62 x 39 round anymore. It is now utilized by 3rd class military organizations that could not afford new weapons at anytime in the last 20 years, armed mobs trying to take over somewhere, and US militia ninjas.

----------


## oyarde

> For the OP, I suggest the SKS over the shotgun for the following reasons:
> 
> (1) Ammunition supply - it appears to me that 7.62 x 39 ammunition is still widely available in your part of the world, shotgun ammunition is more "exotic". You need to be able to feed the machine
> (2) Multiple target engagement - most "home defense" scenarios using shotguns seem to focus on one or two attackers. Land pirates will probably travel in larger groups, making semi-auto much more useful than manual action to load.
> 
> For the rest of the AK / AR debate crowd, a repost from late 2010:
> 
> Taking the guys out for a couple of exercises got the com bloc weapons fans educated on our style of warfare.
> 
> ...


 I agree , for Demi , SKS would be the way to go.

----------


## twisted

frankly, you are full of it if you "think" that a 30AK rd to the trauma plate will do more than make  him blink. Guys take .44 mag's to the chest on soft body armor, and immediately return fire, it;'s the same momentum.  Rich Davis and Alex Jason, of second chance, proved this many times.

----------


## twisted

nobody but a few twits are talking about the 6.8 as a general issue military rd, the 223 will be "it" for the next decade, at least, and probably forever.

----------


## twisted

we aint gonna be fighting anyone with armor, and most of the time, the hits are random accidents.  Intelligent enemies use cover, so all you get is a head/shoulder shot anyway.

----------


## Intoxiklown

> For the rest of the AK / AR debate crowd, a repost from late 2010:
> 
> Taking the guys out for a couple of exercises got the com bloc weapons fans educated on our style of warfare.
> 
> Exercise  1: Convoy ambush consisting of 5 vehicles with 4 riders each  (20  targets represented by 20 balloons of 6 inch diameter representing  the  kill zone of a head shot).  Task is for a squad to hit all 20 in  less  than 15 seconds. A squad with ARs could perform the task easily,  the  squad with the com bloc weapons could not. When the com bloc  weapons  were replaced with ARs, the same guys could cut 40% off of  their time.
> 
> Exercise  2: A squad defends against an attacking platoon, again  represented by 6  inch diameter balloons.  The 100% AR squad could  accomplish the task in  90 seconds, the squad with com bloc weapons  needed almost 150 seconds.
> 
> If  your goal is accurate and rapid fire, the com bloc semi autos don't  do  the job as well as the AR platform, and we have all of our guys with  com  bloc weapons looking to unload them - and are buying AR parts.  Seeing is  believing when it comes to the relationship between tactics  and  weapons.
> ...


This is what I said as an advantage of the 5.56, as it has lesser recoil, and faster 2nd shot placement. And I agree 100%. If I'm going to see how fast I can shoot a bunch of stationary ballons, I want the weapon with very minimal recoil as well to allow for fast accuracy shooting. However, when those ballons start moving and using that vehicle for cover so they can shoot back, then the conditions of your scaenario have changed. Once that vehicle becomes cover, I don't care about minimal vehicle damage, and that heavier round becomes a bit more important. This is also why I prefer an AK semi-auto, being as long as the operator can half way shoot, he will hit what he aims for. 

Also, Russia is already considering going back to the 7.62x39mm.

It boils down to I live in the south, and my two main eviorments are urban and woodlands. For both, a heavier round is preferrable. This is the reason my pistol is a .45 and not a 9mm, same logic. 

And again, you all keep taking the points away from the most important one. When you compare all the factors assault rifles are designed for, the AK design wins out. No, it's not top of the list in all categories, but it is on the most important ones....it WILL fire. I keep seeing arguments about reliability of the AR, when they are STILL having jam issues due to the sand on the M4 as we speak. The tolerances being looser on the AK platform allow it to be a true all weather and terrain weapon. This is a fact, and the main thing I keep harping on. If a weapon doesn't fire, everyting else goes out the window.

----------


## Intoxiklown

> frankly, you are full of it if you "think" that a 30AK rd to the trauma plate will do more than make  him blink. Guys take .44 mag's to the chest on soft body armor, and immediately return fire, it;'s the same momentum.  Rich Davis and Alex Jason, of second chance, proved this many times.


Frankly, you need to learn how to read. I didn't say anything like this in my life. We were talking about "soft armor", the area NOT protected by a trauma plate.

----------


## Weston White

Here are a few suggestions, my favorites:

Mossburg 930SPX Tactical (Pistol-grip Auto-loading 8-rounds) 12GA Shotgun: http://www.mossberg.com/images/Mossb.../NEW/85370.jpg

DPMS/Panther Arms LRT-SASS .308 Rifle: http://www.webarms.com/Gun%20Supplie...LRT%20SASS.htm

Henry Big Boy Lever-action .44/.45/.357 Octagon Barrel: http://www.henryrepeating.com/rifle-big-boy.cfm


And of course, let us not forget about close quarter combat: 

Beretta PX4 Storm .40 (other models available): http://www.berettausa.com/products/p...-size-40sandw/

Smith & Wesson M&P .40 VTAC (other models available): http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/w...layErrorView_Y

----------


## brushfire

There is lots of advise on the topic, and many gun owners enjoy providing it.

My only advise, in addition to some of the other good advise that you're bound to get, is that you not try to search for that magic "unicorn" rifle.  The gun that does everything you want, and will be the only one you own, forever and ever...  This is, in my experience, the common approach for most prospecting gun owners I've known.

If you're lucky, you're life will be long, and you're likely to own more than 1 gun.  Every one of the dozens of new gun owners I've taken to the range, has always enjoyed shooting.  They've gone on to buy multiple guns.  So dont set any limits on trying to find the perfect gun.  Start out with a purpose, and get something affordable, but know that you can always buy another gun later.  My advise is to plan on owning one gun of each major type, over the next 18 - 24 months.  Perhaps even sooner.  i.e. 1 shotgun, 1 handgun, 1 rifle.

Perhaps you will never want a shotgun, or a handgun, but my point is that there are benefits and compromises to any gun.  You may find yourself putting a lot of thought into having the do all gun, just to get another gun you want later.

That's my .2 (-9% per year)  - for what that may be worth to you.

Enjoy!

----------


## twisted

ASAP, get an M4, with a ciener .22lr conversion unit (not from Ciener, he's been indicted for fraud) a RRA trigger job drop in unit, a scope. Get the removable carryying handle. ASAP, get night goggles and a target designatore, and a scope for precision work. It will reliably hit men at 1/4 mile, with match bthp ammo, a free float handguard, scope, and bipod. Also ASAP, get the SureFire "snap on" variant of their sound suppressor, which adds only 7.5" to the OAL. That makes the gun audible to at most 1/2 mile, instead of to 2 miles, and if you use the 127 gr subsonic ammo, inaudible at 50 yds. :-) The 60 gr subsonic .22lr Aquila ammo makes the .22lr conversion unit uniquely versatile, and it saves you 20c per shot or more, for the thousands of rds you need to fire in training, mostly from the weak side shoulder. You don't get to choose which side of most cover you have to fire around, guys, and Murphy says that it will be the "wrong" side, too!  :-)  You need to learn to use either eye with your rifle. Firing right handed around the left side of cover forces you to expose your entire torso to enemy fire, a super bad idea! Having noise and muzzle flash, to blind you and make you flinch, and "guide in" enemy fire to your body, is a far worse idea.

It's night, or dark indoors, in thick forest, in storm drains, etc, at LEAST half the time, so not having night goggles is just stupid. Without the target designator, you have focus the goggles either on your sights (can't see the target) or on the target (can't see your sights).

----------


## twisted

u need a pocket 9mm, but you don't need any other guns, just the M4. The rest are for fun of one sort or another. sport hunting, plinking, collecting, match competion, etc. The only NEED is for defense, and shtf foraging (ie, POACHING) When you use bait, snares, jacklighting, etc, the 223-22 combo is capable of taking anything. even elephant.  Short of tuskers, a 223 sp to the skull will blow the critters eyeballs out of their sockets, no kidding. For tuskers, get within 30m or so, fire several very fast shots at the 3 ft diameter lung, and run like hell. Tuskers aint that fast, and the blood filled lung won't let him chase you very far. Wait 24 hours, look for circling buzzards, go get your elephant.

----------


## oyarde

I have seen , in Africa , Elephants and Buffalo killed with spears , by tribe members ...

----------


## Pericles

> I have seen , in Africa , Elephants and Buffalo killed with spears , by tribe members ...


I'd prefer not to have to get that up close and personal.

----------


## Pericles

> T......................... If a weapon doesn't fire, everyting else goes out the window.

----------


## Intoxiklown

That is what happens when people modify a semi-auto to full auto and don't know what they're doing. Would you like to see video after video of the AR blowing up? IN the HK 416 demo video, they put it and the M4 through different enviorment tests, and the M4s were steadily blowing up. 

American M16 vs. Russian AK-47:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuwR4...eature=related


HK416 vs. M4:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjMH94PuT_I



And again, they are still having issues with the AR platform in the Middle East. The tolerances are so tight on this platform, it does not stand up to enviorment as well as the AK platform, with its looser tolerances. There is no debating this. Some people are trying to argue they have never had a jam on their AR, but they aren't taking in the fact they haven't taken their AR out in the woods for 30+ days and using it while it's steadily exposed to te elements.

----------


## 1000-points-of-fright

> I was trained with an AK-47 when I was a conscript and I simply like an assault rifle even if does not have the automatic option.


You just answered your own question.




> The rifle of course has to be be semi-automatic and should not cost more than 1000-1200 dollars.It is for home defense.


If that's your price range you can buy an decent AK, a few extra mags, a red dot scope and a couple thousand rounds of ammo... and that's here in the US.  I don't know where you are so prices may vary accordingly.

Eh, never mind. Just read your post about what your local cops said.

----------


## alucard13mmfmj

> That is what happens when people modify a semi-auto to full auto and don't know what they're doing. Would you like to see video after video of the AR blowing up? IN the HK 416 demo video, they put it and the M4 through different enviorment tests, and the M4s were steadily blowing up. 
> 
> American M16 vs. Russian AK-47:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuwR4...eature=related
> 
> 
> HK416 vs. M4:
> 
> ...


dig the music in the second video.. lol

----------


## Pericles

> That is what happens when people modify a semi-auto to full auto and don't know what they're doing. Would you like to see video after video of the AR blowing up? IN the HK 416 demo video, they put it and the M4 through different enviorment tests, and the M4s were steadily blowing up. 
> 
> American M16 vs. Russian AK-47:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuwR4...eature=related
> 
> 
> HK416 vs. M4:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjMH94PuT_I
> ...


If you can't tell the difference between a real AK-47 and a semi modified to fire auto, you might want to head back to your gamin board mentioned in your sig line.

Any kind of vids can be posted showing failures, some more of the AR vs. AK silliness

----------


## Intoxiklown

> If you can't tell the difference between a real AK-47 and a semi modified to fire auto, you might want to head back to your gamin board mentioned in your sig line.


That weapon blowing up was caused by an OOB. Semi-auto AKs don't have an ani-bounce device on them since they are semi and not full auto. Also, a real AK-47 has an extra lever just forward of the hammer that holds the hammer back until the bolt is fully closed and locked. It also prevents the hammer from falling unless the round is fully seated in the chamber. The smei-auto version does not have this lever. That is why when people convert them to full withot knowing what the are doing, you get that. The auto/safety sear is the first "line of defense" against OOB fire. The second line od defense is the tail on the carrier (which is primarily there to reduce the amount of force required to start the hammer moving backward) which also prevents the hammer from striking the firing pin until the bolt is locked. In other words, due to the design of the AK platform (the action is not "timed"), that is a semi auto converted to full. You might want to be sure you know what you're talking about before you try that smart ass $#@! with me.


But fine, let's go this route. Does the AR have better accuracy, both in one shot semi and in grouping at full auto? Of course it does. I have said thgis mulitple times. Does the AR allow for faster 2nd shot placement target acquisition due to the lesser recoil? Of course it does, and again, I've said this. But, for anyone to say that the AR is just as reliable in the field as the AK platform is just plain $#@!ing stupid. This is not debatable. Everyone knows this. The AR platform is very tight with it's tolerances, which means any $#@!ing dirt in there will cause weapon jams and failures to feed. The AK platform is built with much looser tolerances to get around this problem. And while the AR will have greater "power" at distances of 400+ yards due to the speed of the projectile, the AK has MUCH superior knock down power and penetration within 300 yards. Again, this is not debatable, and anyone that tries to say differently is $#@!ing stupid.

Both weapons have their pros and cons, and I chose the AK because the pros it offers outweight the cons of the AR platform for me. Not only that, but I don't have to spend hundreds of dollars on after market kits trying to compensate for the platform design weaknesses. I can totally understand people saying they prefer the AR for it's accuracy at range, as well as it's lower recoil for fast target acquisition. But dont' sit here and try to piss down my back and tell me it's raining.

----------


## Intoxiklown

What soldiers have to say about the M-4/M-16 (AR platform):

3rd ID soldier: “I know it fires very well and accurate [when] clean. But sometimes it needs to fire dirty well too.”

25th Infantry Division soldier: “The M4 Weapon in the deserts of Iraq and Afghanistan was quick to malfunction when a little sand got in the weapon. Trying to keep it clean, sand free was impossible while on patrols or firefights.”

82nd Airborne Division soldier: “The M4 is overall an excellent weapon, however the flaw of its sensitivity to dirt and powder residue needs to be corrected. True to fact, cleaning will help. Daily assigned tasks, and nonregular hours in tactical situations do not always warrant the necessary time required for effective cleaning.”

75th Ranger Regiment member, SOCOM: “Even with the dust cover closed and magazine in the well, sand gets all inside; on and around the bolt. It still fires, but after a while the sand works its way all through the gun and jams start.”

The 507th Maintenance Company, ambushed outside Nasariyah in 2003 during the opening days of the ground invasion of Iraq, might concur with all of the above. The post-incident report released by the US Army had this to say:

“Dusty, desert conditions do require vigilance in weapons maintenance… However, it is imperative to remember that at the time of the attack, the 507th had spent more than two days on the move, with little rest and time to conduct vehicle repair and recovery operations.” 

The last word will be left to SOCOM’s Major Chaz Bowser:

“We buy new laptop computers every few years across the gamut, so couldn’t we do the same with our single most important piece of military equipment? …. Waiting for a leap-ahead technology based on a kinetic energy weapon platform is a waste of time and money, so we need to look at what is out there now…. What the Army needs is a weapon that is now ready for prime-time and not a developmental system…. The requirement comes from the field, not from an office in some garrison activity, not from some consultant and definitely not from a vendor.

Let’s do this quickly without all the bureaucracy typically associated with change. Find someone in our ranks who can make a decision – who hasn’t floated a retirement resume with a gun company – and make the decision now. Just look how fast we were all issued the ‘highly coveted’ black beret or the digital uniform. Find that recipe card, change out the word ‘Velcro’ with ‘battle rifle’ and that may be a start to finding a solution [DID: which, he acknowledges, could be Colt's M4 if that's what the competition shows]. Our men and women deserve much better than we are giving them, and shame on us.“

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Strangely enough, Marine units are even _more_ mobile, and aren't complaining about dirty rifles.  Sounds like a training issue to me.

I for one hate the M4, the length of the barrel makes it underpowered with the 5.56 NATO except for CQB.  If every target you are engaging is within 50 yards, then and only then is the AK a better choice.

As a former Marine rifle expert and certified gun nut, I wouldn't own an AK if someone paid me to take it.  

My preferred weapon would be the LMT308MWS with a 20" barrel.  Mind you that is out of my price range, but soldiers in the field would do much better with a carbine based off the AR10 rather than the AR15, with which they could at least engage targets out to 400 yards and know the weapon will work.

Particularly in a SHTF scenario, I don't want to be taking shots inside of 200 yards unless I absolutely must, which makes the AK a deal breaker for me.  I have to know that I know that my rifle is capable of at _LEAST_ 2 MOA which when added to the human error of another 2 MOA gives you a CEP of 20" at 500 yards.

There are plenty of weapons that are 2MOA out of the box, and the AK is not among them.  It's nice that they look menacing in photographs, and it's nice that you can be lazy with your weapon's preventative maintenance, but if I have to whisper a prayer before each trigger pull in order to have any hope of hitting a target at 350 yards, then I just don't want it.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

As to SOCOM rifles, they are currently deploying the SCAR-L and the SCAR-H which makes a lot of sense given SOCOM's mission.  Major Bowser somehow seems to be unaware of the current ongoing SOCOM transition to the SCAR, which thing I don't really understand.

----------


## Intoxiklown

> Strangely enough, Marine units are even _more_ mobile, and aren't complaining about dirty rifles.  Sounds like a training issue to me.
> 
> I for one hate the M4, the length of the barrel makes it underpowered with the 5.56 NATO except for CQB.  If every target you are engaging is within 50 yards, then and only then is the AK a better choice.
> 
> As a former Marine rifle expert and certified gun nut, I wouldn't own an AK if someone paid me to take it.  
> 
> My preferred weapon would be the LMT308MWS with a 20" barrel.  Mind you that is out of my price range, but soldiers in the field would do much better with a carbine based off the AR10 rather than the AR15, with which they could at least engage targets out to 400 yards and know the weapon will work.
> 
> Particularly in a SHTF scenario, I don't want to be taking shots inside of 200 yards unless I absolutely must, which makes the AK a deal breaker for me.  I have to know that I know that my rifle is capable of at _LEAST_ 2 MOA which when added to the human error of another 2 MOA gives you a CEP of 20" at 500 yards.
> ...


I fully understand, and agree with your points. Again, for me and where I live, my two predominant enviorments are urban and heavy woodland. So, the range advantage of the AR platform would be essentially wasted for me. The issue with the M4 is the way it is designed with it’s direct gas impingement system and extremely tight tolerances. Yes, it will function very well as long as it is properly maintained. But sometimes we dont' get to take the time to properly maintain it, and sometimes you might have to hit the mud with the rifle. The problems being reported aren't from lack of weapon maintenance, but rather from field enviorments. If I wind up having to crawl in a mud ditch in a SHTF scenario, I don't want to have to whisper a prayer that my weapon will fire if I have to fight my out. It's a trade off between the two platforms. 

I readily agree with you about the AR10. It's a shame that US military didn't pursue that weapon.

I'm more excited about the HK416 though. As it seems they have taken the pros of the AR platform, and the pros of the AK platform, and combined them into a "bastard" child, and created a very nice weapon. I'm waiting to learn more about it, and would like to read more real world opinions on them, but am very much considering buying one. I don't mind paying for a nice weapon, so even it's it's a $2k weapon, I definitely will get one. I get lucky sometimes though. I just recently bought a Browning BAR .300 Magnum for $300 from a guy who was down on his luck. I felt ind of guilty taking advantage of his situation if you will, but realized that if I didn't buy it, someone else would have. However, I don't have a lot of experience with optics, and am researching the best option for optics for it. But the weapon itself is just wow.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Regarding the HK416, I wouldn't put 5.56 NATO in anything less than an 18" barrel.  Firing 5.56 from a 16" barrel means the round is woefully underpowered past 400 yards.  As much as I like the SCAR-L, I wouldn't get the CQB version either, unless I also had the upper receiver with an 18-20" barrel and could swap into the 16" barrel just specifically for CQB where it becomes an asset.

I am a big fan of the gas-piston conversions, as I hate direct impingement, and if I did manage to shell out the money for the LMT308 I would try to get a working gas piston op-rod conversion.  I have to pay some $2000 as a delegate to the RNC however, so that delays my LMT308MWS 20" purchase by close to another year I think.  

The SCAR is a good weapon for this class also, particularly with the modular design and easily swappable upper/lower combos.

I like the full length AR M16 in 5.56, and with proper weapons maintenance it is ridiculously reliable with a premium brand like Colt, but the M4 short barrel (M-forgeries) can stay in the gun store where they belong.  Short barrels just do not work with the 5.56 NATO (except for CQB only) and they never will.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

The M6A4 is also ridiculously nice, but heaven help the civilian who wants one.

----------


## twisted

The Pygmies used to do it by digging a tiny pit in the trail, having one man get in it, then covering him with debris. As the elephant passed over him, he would straighten up, spear held in both hands, using all of his leg power to drive the point deep up into the animal's guts. Then they'd follow the trail until the animal died. Of course, every now and then, the elephant would step just "wrong" and another martyr to the tribe would get added to the wailing list.

----------


## twisted

u think that the 223 does poorly in a short barrel, try a 308 in an 11" barrel!  :-) 2000 fps and no more "reach' than an sks has. You can get a 60 gr Nosler Partition SP to 2700 fps in an M4, which is 1000 ft lbs of power, the same as a 6" .44 mag revolver with a VERY powerful load in the .44. Anyone who "thinks" that that much power is inadequate and I mean to several hundred yds, is ignorant of the facts of combat.  Well over 90% of the actual killing in rifle combat is done under 100 yds, you know.  Put 69 gr bthp match ammo in the M4, and it will still have as much power left at 400 yds as a .45 1911 has at 10 ft. Put a scope, trigger job, free float tube and bipod on it, and it will reliably hit men at 400 yds, and that's plenty of range and accuracy. Actually the piston conversions to the AR don't work well at all. they end up causing a lot of premature wear in the buffer area, it seems. there's nothing at all wrong with direct gas impingement, in semi auto for realistic employment, by intelligent, diligent men in the USA environment. Now, I realize that those 2 qualifying words leave out a lot of would be survivalists, but that's tough

----------


## twisted

we don't live in Iraq and there is no reason at all for you to neglect and abuse your rifle. The AK was built for use by ignorannt peasants. If that is what you are, get one and be limited by it.  Go the 2x  a year machinegun shoot at KnobCreek, KY and SEE the AR performing while PLENTY dirty. These internet lies need to be put to rest.

----------


## oyarde

I am still a bit  little  jealous of Gunny's Franchi  , one of these days , when I can come up with time , I will have to look at some and see if I can find one for myself ...

----------


## Intoxiklown

> *there's nothing at all wrong with direct gas impingement*, in semi auto for realistic employment, by intelligent, diligent men in the USA environment. Now, I realize that those 2 qualifying words leave out a lot of would be survivalists, but that's tough


Naw, it only causes pressurized and heated black carbon to be deposited all over your bolt carrier, and is the leading cause of jams and double feeds. Not only that, but it accumlulates fast as $#@!. Maybe if you'd quit running that dick holster reapeating ignorance you read on a gun forum, and actually got some experience, you'd know this.






> we don't live in Iraq and there is no reason at all for you to neglect and abuse your rifle. The AK was built for use by ignorannt peasants. If that is what you are, get one and be limited by it.  Go the 2x  a year machinegun shoot at KnobCreek, KY and SEE the AR performing while PLENTY dirty. These internet lies need to be put to rest.


Congratulations. You have proven to be yet another arm chair rambo that doesn't have a $#@!ing clue about field enviorments with a weapon. Go to the field for 30+ days, and see how the AR platform performs when it's in mud and water all day long.

----------


## Intoxiklown

> Regarding the HK416, I wouldn't put 5.56 NATO in anything less than an 18" barrel.  Firing 5.56 from a 16" barrel means the round is woefully underpowered past 400 yards.  As much as I like the SCAR-L, I wouldn't get the CQB version either, unless I also had the upper receiver with an 18-20" barrel and could swap into the 16" barrel just specifically for CQB where it becomes an asset.
> 
> I am a big fan of the gas-piston conversions, as I hate direct impingement, and if I did manage to shell out the money for the LMT308 I would try to get a working gas piston op-rod conversion.  I have to pay some $2000 as a delegate to the RNC however, so that delays my LMT308MWS 20" purchase by close to another year I think.  
> 
> The SCAR is a good weapon for this class also, particularly with the modular design and easily swappable upper/lower combos.
> 
> I like the full length AR M16 in 5.56, and with proper weapons maintenance it is ridiculously reliable with a premium brand like Colt, but the M4 short barrel (M-forgeries) can stay in the gun store where they belong.  Short barrels just do not work with the 5.56 NATO (except for CQB only) and they never will.


I think the HK416 has a 20" barrel option build. I'm not sure, but it seems I read that somewhere. But again, I'm definitely waiting for more info on it before I commit to one. And I whole heartedly agree about the full size M16. I like the A2, as it was a very accurate and dependable weapon as long as you kept it properly clean and maintained, as you said. The only maintenance I ever had to get on one was replacing the firing pin, but that wear was mainly from using the pin to clean the weapon itself, trying to scrape the carbon off...lol

----------


## GunnyFreedom

My ballistics calculator says 60gr with a MV of 2700 retains 168 ft/lbs (certainly not 1000!) at 400 yds.  128 ft/lbs at 500 yds.

Comparing the M855 at 400 yards with 186 ft/lbs of energy and calling it equivalent to a .44 Magnum ant 1ft with 1100 ft/lbs of energy is disingenuous at best.

If you are going to be using the weapon at point blank pistol range, then why not use a pistol or a SMG?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I think the HK416 has a 20" barrel option build. I'm not sure, but it seems I read that somewhere. But again, I'm definitely waiting for more info on it before I commit to one. And I whole heartedly agree about the full size M16. I like the A2, as it was a very accurate and dependable weapon as long as you kept it properly clean and maintained, as you said. The only maintenance I ever had to get on one was replacing the firing pin, but that wear was mainly from using the pin to clean the weapon itself, trying to scrape the carbon off...lol


Probably, carbines 'look cooler' so they get advertised more, despite the fact that most folks with sense prefer a full size rifle, and manufacturers know that and very often sell the full size even if they don't put the advertising resources behind it.  A good example is the LMT308 with which the longest barrel they advertise is 18" but they do sell the 20" barrel for enthusiasts.

If I'm buying a rifle, I want a RIFLE not a glorified friggin pistol.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I am still a bit  little  jealous of Gunny's Franchi  , one of these days , when I can come up with time , I will have to look at some and see if I can find one for myself ...


It's an awful nice shotgun, but the one and only opportunity I have had to shoot skeet I only had seriously underpowered birdshot and sucked massively.  Shotguns are not in my 'expert zone' the way rifles are.  With the Franchi I feel like a monkey holding a .75 mm precision screwdriver.

----------


## oyarde

> It's an awful nice shotgun, but the one and only opportunity I have had to shoot skeet I only had seriously underpowered birdshot and sucked massively.  Shotguns are not in my 'expert zone' the way rifles are.  With the Franchi I feel like a monkey holding a .75 mm precision screwdriver.


 I shoot clays in the yard every now and then , I use # 9 shot winchester target loads , I have even hunted quail with those loads , you should try it more Glenn , gets fun when you get a bit better at it.

----------


## twisted

I never said it had 1000 ft lbs at 400 yds, but it has that much at the muzzle. The further away an enemy is, the less hard you have to hit him. If you are prone around cover, as you certainly SHOULD be for sniping type shots like 400 yds, he can't hit you BEFORE you put a 223 thru his chest. :-) Also, your calculator is VERY wrong, or you are misapplying it. The BC of the 69 gr hpbt is MUCH better than that of a plain based softpoint, and even that latter bullet has more power left at 400 yds than 128 ft lbs. It's still handy to have a 14.5" barrel and a 6.5" sound suppressor on a 223. It's NOT handy to have a 20" 308 barrel and the 10" of can necessary to adequately suppress it. to THINK of being in shtf, without a suppressor, is to be a fool.  No more ammo than you are going to SUCCESSFULLY use in an encounter, as a civilian, fouling is no issue at all. That is only an issue for stupid troops who empty 300 rds in a minute, on full auto, hit NOTHING and go crying on the radio for air support and evac.

----------


## twisted

aint this a RIFLE thread? Why don't you start your OWN thread for the shotgun admiration crowd?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

LOL suppressors on a supersonic round lmao, just more weight to carry around for no purpose whatsoever.  Dunno what he did to get himself banned, but he sure was talking here like he knows a lot about stuff he has really no clue about.

----------


## Kotin

> LOL suppressors on a supersonic round lmao, just more weight to carry around for no purpose whatsoever.  Dunno what he did to get himself banned, but he sure was talking here like he knows a lot about stuff he has really no clue about.


Is the saiga 12 sub- sonic?? Cause it already has threading on the barrel on mine..

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Is the saiga 12 sub- sonic?? Cause it already has threading on the barrel on mine..


That's really for the choke.  Shotguns can be very effectively choked to set the pattern spread.

It's possible, although extremely rare to suppress a 12ga.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Even more on point:

----------


## oyarde

> LOL suppressors on a supersonic round lmao, just more weight to carry around for no purpose whatsoever.  Dunno what he did to get himself banned, but he sure was talking here like he knows a lot about stuff he has really no clue about.


I dunno , is there a General Rudeness clause ? I was wondering if he was old enough to shave ....

----------


## Pericles

I get on to people about the AK always reliable myth because it leads to  unjustified over confidence that an AK is always going to work, no  matter what. That type of over confidence can cause one to end up very  dead, and it would be a tragedy for someone to end up dead by taking  well intentioned, but bad advice.

Having unjustified confidence leads people to do this:




because  they think that the AK is still going to work, no matter what. As  *GunnyFreedom* mentioned, that also leads to laziness, not only in  weapon care, but tactical awareness as well. M16 data on MTBS and MTBF  is on the net, and running that weapon, the owner should be aware of its  limitations. I don't see that type of reliability study on the AK -  wonder why that is? AKs work very well within their design parameters,  but have a limited life cycle (based on quality of construction, usually  considered 6000 to 15.000 rounds). When getting toward the end of life,  things tend to happen, such as:


 and




Notice,  that when the Israelis took the AK design, gave it a 5.56mm barrel and  M16 magazines, the Galil did not last long in service, and there is  little market demand for it.

It is good to test your weapons to see what they can take and still perform:




If  an Ak is a good solution for you because of limited sight distance in  your area, that works both ways. Visitors can get closer to you before  making their presence known.

----------


## GuerrillaXXI

> The cons of the AK series is weight of the weapon, and more recoil at full auto, and loss of accuracy at distance shooting when compared to the AR. However the pros of it are reliability in all weather. Heavier round. Much more durable, thereby can be counted on to shoot when you need it to shoot. And more penetration. I'd like you to elaborate on what you consider inferior about that.


More penetration through what? As I've already explained, the AK rounds that are generally available to civilians in the US suck at penetrating armor. There are face masks and helmets out there now that can stop a 7.62x39 from 25 feet away. For example:

http://www.mtekweaponsystems.com/sup...te=common/home

This kind of lightweight armor is only going to become more common. Do you want a weapon that can't penetrate it? 5.56 NATO green tip is widely available to civilians and CAN go through the polyethylene plates, helmets, and other armor.

If you're talking about trees, bricks, window glass, and other common building materials, then yes, the 7.62x39 penetrates through those better. I think penetration through armor is more important, but your opinion may vary.




> I'm aware. It's called a tumbler round. You get that with a lighter round. What you might want to consider is a lot of things can cause that tumbling, like a tree branch, whereas a 7.62x39mm will punch through. Your argument is missing a very basic fact of the different ballistics of the two rounds, and something that actually lends more credence to why the 7.62 makes for a better round. More so, the tumble effect is not guarnateed with the 5.56 meaning that comparison is very biased. In all equal tests, the 7.62 makes a larger entry wound, and a larger exit wound.


I already posted evidence that contradicts what you're saying here, at least as far as FMJ rounds are concerned. Didn't you look at the gel shots I posted? How about the statement from Martin Fackler?

If you're not restricted regarding the ammo you can use (which, as civilians, we're not), I'll grant you that a 7.62x39 will be deadlier than a 5.56 if good hollowpoints are used for both.




> I never said targets couldn't be hit from that range. I said to engage targets at that distance with an assault weapon is foolish. And you are talking about tactics they teach basic infantrymen NOT to use. Make no mistake about it. If you engage a larger, better armed force at that distance with an assault rifle, all you are going to do is give them your position. They will flank you. They will kill you.
> 
> Again, if you try to play sniper with a AR-15 against a larger and well armed group, you are going to die. All small arms combat happens at close quarters for a reason. Because that's what small arms are designed for. I mean...where are you getting this garbage from?


It's not garbage. If you think it's dangerous to shoot at a larger and well-armed group at a distance, just try doing it at close range. You'll be instantly ventilated unless you're behind great cover. At least if you have distance between them and you there's the chance of picking some off before escaping or being killed yourself.

Just look at the damage caused by people like Charles Whitman, who had all kinds of people shooting at him but managed to hold out for a long time. He could have just as easily been using an AR at the ranges he was shooting at. Or look at all the trouble Taliban marksmen have been causing the US, even though the Taliban don't have access to weapons and ammo nearly as accurate as what a good AR-15 with match ammo offers:

"Growing Taliban use of snipers worries U.S. military"
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/01/0...-marksmen.html




> Lethality goes to the much smaller and faster 5.56????


Yes, at close range and if FMJ is used. That's because the 5.56 fragments above a certain velocity. The AK round usually doesn't. This is common knowledge. At longer ranges where the 5.56 FMJ doesn't fragment, the AK is probably deadlier. But it's harder to hit with an AK at long range, and shot placement is crucial in any case.




> NATO prefers the 5.56 because it is less recoil at full auto, allowing soldiers to get quick second shot placement, as well as carry more ammo since the weapon was designed around the "spray and pray" mantra. They are already talking about looking for a middle of the road caliber like the 7mm, to try to match the killing power of the 7.62 used by enemy forces.





> We've had this talk before. The trauma plates in body armor can stop a rifle round, but not the "soft armor". It won't stop either round, and only has this chance at distances. And then, the 7.62 is going to cause MUCH more blunt force trauma. We're talking breaking your ribs trauma. Soft armor is good for pistol rounds, and that's it. And that is Level I, II, or III. Also, you're trying to compare regular lead 7.62 rounds to green tip (ballistic tip) 5.56? What do you think a ballistic tip in a 7.62x39mm will do?


"Ballistic tip"? Not sure what you mean. If you're referring to genuine AP 7.62x39, then I've already acknowledged that it's better against armor than 5.56 NATO. But again, the problem is that true AP in 7.62x39 is very hard to come by. 5.56 NATO green tip is everywhere.

Those "trauma plates," as you call them (there's actually a difference between trauma plates and armor plates) can be made of steel, ceramic, polyethylene (compressed Dyneema), or a combination of these. Any of them will stop lead core 7.62x39 -- it's one of the easier rifle rounds to stop with armor due to its moderate velocity and low sectional density. In contrast, fast 5.56 rounds (like M193) can get through some steel plates at close range. M855 can punch through hard polyethylene plates that will stop even .308 FMJ. These are not just my opinions; they are facts. Here's one source:

http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=32839

Note that the polyethylene that can stop everything except 5.56 green tip is what's used to make the newest combat helmets and face masks. It will likely be used to cover other areas of the body in the future as well, since it's very light for the protection it provides.

As for blunt trauma, 7.62x39 will definitely cause more than 5.56. But neither will be a fight-stopper. If one bullet can penetrate and the other can't, I'll take the one that can.




> I'm sorry, but you're out of your mind if you truly think the 5.56 is a "harder hitting round for close quarters" than the 7.62.


No, 5.56 is not "harder hitting." It just penetrates armor better (unless you can get AP 7.62x39) and causes bigger wounds at close range (at least if we're comparing FMJ only). A close-range fight is when you most need AP capability and big wounds. If I'm out of my mind for saying this, then so are all the wound ballistics experts, and those body armor tests are all some big conspiracy.




> I don't need to watch the video. I've shot the M16, the M4, and civilian ARs. I know what these weapons will do. There is a reason I jumped on the chance to trade my AR for the AK. I want an assault weapon that I can use for a club if I need to, bury it in the mud, swim underwater with it, and know I can then start throwing lead with it and not miss a beat. The AR design can not promise me that.


Shooting a rifle and knowing what kind of torture it will endure are two different things.

I won't argue the point that the AK is more durable. It is. My position is that the AR is reliable and durable _enough_ for even very hard use, and it has all those other advantages in addition -- like actually being able to put holes in some armored foes as opposed to just bruising someone or maybe breaking a rib.




> I'm not worried about being accurate at 400+ yards with it, as if I have that kind of distance, I'm going to fall back and get out of there. I'm not worried about being able to carry 1/3 more ammo, because if I shoot, I'm going to hit my target.


What if your target is only at 200 yards but he's shooting from behind heavy cover, with only a small part of his body exposed? What if he's covered in armor except for his face and is shooting at you from 200 yards? Accuracy will be pretty important then.




> And using a scaled down .308 round in the 7.62x39mm, I know that because of my well placed first shot that man is now down. Even if I hit the trauma plate in his armor, I have hit him hard enough that he is still down for a few minutes.


7.62x39 is not a "scaled down .308." It uses an entirely different bullet -- one with an inferior ballistic coefficient. And no, hitting someone in the chest armor plate with a 7.62x39 is not guaranteed to put him down for any length of time. Some soldiers have been hit with that round and said that it just felt like they'd been punched. They kept right on fighting.




> I'm used to having the argument concerning accuracy, but honestly you are saying things I've never heard anyone in my life say.


I'm glad you're hearing it now, because none of these things I've been pointing out are big secrets. I have no bias on this topic. As I said, I own and like both kinds of rifle. But facts are facts, and if you Google on any of these topics and read what reputable sources have to say on these matters (body armor manufacturers, wound ballistics experts, etc.), you will see that what I'm saying about the capabilities of these weapons is all correct.

----------


## presence

1200 bucks?

Ruger 22LR semi $400
Mossberg 500 pump  $400
Savage bolt 7MM $400

You're armed.

----------


## xFiFtyOnE

> *It is for home defense*.Even if  I own a gun I can not take it outside with me it is illegal.I will probably need to wait for 1-2 years just to get a gun permit in any case.
> 
> Here killing someone is not so simple because if you kill someone their family is going to come after you for sure.*Guns are used more for spreading fear* around.If they see that you can fight back the criminals usually just back off.Also because I am from the Balkans a war is always just around the corner.And not to lie I simply don't want a shotgun.I was trained with an AK-47 when I was a conscript and I simply like an assault rifle even if does not have the automatic option.
> 
> I googled the a.22LR you mentioned and all I found was this http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...22-lr-sig-550/


Spreading fear and home defense....hmmm.  I say a pump action shotgun.  I know you asked about rifles but IMO nothing is better for home defense than a shotgun and fewer things are better at spreading fear than the sound of racking pump action.

----------


## tod evans

> Spreading fear and home defense....hmmm.  I say a pump action shotgun.  I know you asked about rifles but IMO nothing is better for home defense than a shotgun and fewer things are better at spreading fear than the sound of racking pump action.


Look into the business end of a DB 10ga.....

Something like this will appreciate in value.

----------


## xFiFtyOnE

> 1200 bucks?
> 
> Ruger 22LR semi $400
> Mossberg 500 pump  $400
> Savage bolt 7MM $400
> 
> You're armed.


That's an expensive Ruger 10/22!   Mine has an ATI stock with pistol grip, the BX-25 extended mag and a scope and I've got less than $300 in it totally.  Should be able to pick up a base model for around $200.

----------


## xFiFtyOnE

> Look into the business end of a DB 10ga.....
> 
> Something like this will appreciate in value.


Jeez.  I bet that feels wonderful to shoot.  LOL

----------


## tod evans

> Jeez.  I bet that feels wonderful to shoot.  LOL


I'm not man enough to grab that back trigger first

----------


## xFiFtyOnE

I probably wouldn't be either.  If you ever try it make sure someone is behind you to catch you when it knocks you on your ass.  LOL

----------


## oyarde

> That's an expensive Ruger 10/22!   Mine has an ATI stock with pistol grip, the BX-25 extended mag and a scope and I've got less than $300 in it totally.  Should be able to pick up a base model for around $200.


 I got mine as gift from a buddy that won it in a poker game.

----------

