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.
Advice for buying a rifle
- Thread starter Demigod
- Start date
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/...8336/Bushmaster+AZ-C1516M4FT+223+16+FLAT+30RD this http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/...s_id/13233/Bushmaster+BCWA2F16+223+BAYFLS30RD and this http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/...s_id/69657/Bushmaster+CAR15+223+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.
Last edited:
ryanmkeisling
Member
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2008
- Messages
- 1,502
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
Member
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2008
- Messages
- 9,921
The perfect weapon for me, may not be the perfect weapon for you.
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.
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.
Last edited:
osan
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2009
- Messages
- 16,866
Different persons define "accuracy" differently.
It is entirely fair because what counts in directed fire is putting lead on target. Suppressive fire is a different ball of wax.
Intoxiklown
Member
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2011
- Messages
- 1,670
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
Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 32,882
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.
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.
Good Luck , have fun Demi .
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.
Last edited:
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.May as well read it all , it is not that long
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
Last edited:
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
Member
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2011
- Messages
- 1,670
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
Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2011
- Messages
- 748
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.
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.
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/images/Wound Profiles/AK-47 762x39mm.jpg
5.56x45 FMJ wound profile: http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound Profiles/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/board3/messages/1359.html
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Last edited:
Intoxiklown
Member
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2011
- Messages
- 1,670
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.
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.
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 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?
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.
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?
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 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
Member
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2008
- Messages
- 9,921
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.
(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.
Last edited:
I agree , for Demi , SKS would be the way to go.
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.