TexasCHLforum.com

connectme3504 wrote:

74novaman wrote:So far, I'm the only "AK variants only" vote. Thats interesting.

I'm with you. AK only for me. .223 is too small.

ARs in 7.62x39 are available.... not to mention ARs in 7.62x51 NATO if "bigger" is what you're lookin' for.... I'm just sayin'...

I've got an M4 patterned AR-15, and will be buying an SKS in the next couple of days.

I tried out an AK-47 and it just didn't feel right to me.

I own both and like both for different reasons.
reason being they serve 2 different purposes for me.
If I had to grab one and go and it be my only rifle ,
i'd grab my Fal.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

connectme3504 wrote:

74novaman wrote:So far, I'm the only "AK variants only" vote. Thats interesting.

I'm with you. AK only for me. .223 is too small.

ARs in 7.62x39 are available.... not to mention ARs in 7.62x51 NATO if "bigger" is what you're lookin' for.... I'm just sayin'...

AR's in Russian calibers are notoriously unreliable. Problems from crappy American made mags, to low quality ammo, and inconsistent quality control on feed ramps and chamber specs.

I have rifles for the everything going bad situations. Since that's the case, I'd rather spend $400 on a rifle and $200 per 1k rds of ammunition, rather that double that (at least) for an AR and even more for quality ammo... not to mention that in a bad situation the rifle might see some abuse and I wouldn't be able to clean it regularly.

So my preference is cheap and reliable... and accurate for the ranges I'm thinking I'll need. If it's beyond a couple hundred yards, I'd be hard pressed to prove it was indeed a threat to my safety

And I can use a PSL if I REALLY need longer range

AK for me. Only have one right now... need more....

aaronspuler wrote:I've got an M4 patterned AR-15, and will be buying an SKS in the next couple of days.

I tried out an AK-47 and it just didn't feel right to me.

I think the sks is a better system anyway and with the marcus adapter and a few mod'd tapco 20's you'd certainly be in tha game so to speak.
I actually think the sks system may be better than the AR (just saying!!!)...but I waiver on the issue when i'm tired and the AR is so light and ammo is light also.

let the flames and fumes fester in the minds of all!

zigzag wrote:I have three AK s . Its gonna be glock pistols and AKs for me .

Somewhere in a Mall

Vecco wrote:

zigzag wrote:I have three AK s . Its gonna be glock pistols and AKs for me .

Somewhere in a Mall

M44; Dave Grossmann's comments on psychological effects in gunfights - "the loudest boom often wins the fight" - favor mine :)

Vecco wrote:

zigzag wrote:I have three AK s . Its gonna be glock pistols and AKs for me .

Somewhere in a Mall

The mall ninjas are the ones spending money on gadgets instead of ammo.

http://bit.ly/bkkQmX

Unless I have to defend my home in the middle of a sand storm...then it will always be the AR for me.


Flint.

flintknapper wrote:Unless I have to defend my home in the middle of a sand storm...then it will always be the AR for me.

Good point - here stateside, few of us are going to be using a firearm under really adverse conditions - we generally don't have to worry about a rifle functioning after it's been coated with fine sand for most of a patrol, or after being dropped in a rice paddy, or coated with sleet from a winter storm. So the "which is more reliable" is largely academic . . . unless you've built your AR on the cheap out of gun show components of questionable origin. (Few build their AKs.)

Under "normal" conditions I'll pick a good AR for its superior ergonomics - the AK round hits harder, but with good ammo (I'm not limited to FMJ!) the AR certainly hits hard enough.

If I knew I was going into severe conditions, the AK has a lot of merits. And a good AK is going to be a lot cheaper than a good AR. But logistics do favor the AR.

HankB wrote:

flintknapper wrote:Unless I have to defend my home in the middle of a sand storm...then it will always be the AR for me.

Good point - here stateside, few of us are going to be using a firearm under really adverse conditions - we generally don't have to worry about a rifle functioning after it's been coated with fine sand for most of a patrol, or after being dropped in a rice paddy, or coated with sleet from a winter storm. So the "which is more reliable" is largely academic . . . unless you've built your AR on the cheap out of gun show components of questionable origin. (Few build their AKs.)

Under "normal" conditions I'll pick a good AR for its superior ergonomics - the AK round hits harder, but with good ammo (I'm not limited to FMJ!) the AR certainly hits hard enough.

If I knew I was going into severe conditions, the AK has a lot of merits. And a good AK is going to be a lot cheaper than a good AR. But logistics do favor the AR.

As compared to the 5.56 yes.....but not the AR10 (.308) and certainly not my .458 SOCOM.

HankB wrote:

flintknapper wrote:Unless I have to defend my home in the middle of a sand storm...then it will always be the AR for me.

Good point - here stateside, few of us are going to be using a firearm under really adverse conditions - we generally don't have to worry about a rifle functioning after it's been coated with fine sand for most of a patrol, or after being dropped in a rice paddy, or coated with sleet from a winter storm. So the "which is more reliable" is largely academic . . . unless you've built your AR on the cheap out of gun show components of questionable origin. (Few build their AKs.)

Under "normal" conditions I'll pick a good AR for its superior ergonomics - the AK round hits harder, but with good ammo (I'm not limited to FMJ!) the AR certainly hits hard enough.

If I knew I was going into severe conditions, the AK has a lot of merits. And a good AK is going to be a lot cheaper than a good AR. But logistics do favor the AR.

AR for HD. M1A for everything else requiring a harder hitting round. If I had to pick just one of the two, it would be my M1A. Gabe Suarez has recently published a couple of articles about the "General Purpose" rifle (http://www.warriortalknews.com/2010/10/ ... art-2.html). It must be able to do everything from CQB to 800 yards. It doesn't have to be brilliant at any one thing, but it needs to be successfully usable for all things. The common denominator is caliber - something in a .30 cal with ballistics in the .308/.30-06/7.62x54 neighborhood. Ammo must be commonly available, which reduces the value of the russian round. Good candidates include the M1A (which I have), the AR10, the FAL, the HK91, the G3, the Saiga .308, the PSL. It should have good iron sights, and be able to mount a scope - NOT in the scout configuration. Suarez's response to the weight of the rifle question is basically: "quite whining. War is hard. Get stronger." Easier said than done, as I'm learning for myself.

.308/7.62 NATO rounds certainly hit harder than .223/5.56 or 7.62x39, but the rifles tend to be longer & heavier. (Have an M1A and an StG-58 myself) But seldom will one have to take an 800-yard shot in a defensive situation. For HD, I would much rather use an AR or AK than a full size battle rifle.

And despite its undeniable ballistic thump, the .458 SOCOM is a toy - as are rounds like the .450 Bushmaster, .50 Beowulf, and everything else that doesn't use readily available ammo. (Which is why I haven't built an AR in 6.8 SPC or 6.5 Grendel - logistics do matter.)