Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 37

Thread: Survival guns for a minamilist

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Westland, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    135

    Post imported post

    My comments in Red. For the record I think Veritas is well thought out on this I just disagree with him.
    Veritas
    Regular Member


    Joined:
    Thu Apr 23rd, 2009 wrote:
    I hear you on the drawbacks, but I believe it's easier to get a milsurp AR/M4 or AK (chambered in 5.56 and 7.62, respectively). With this in mind, I'm considering the likelihood that I'll have to mix and match between consumer ammo and milspec ammo. In a 5.56 chamber, I can take 5.56 OR .223... but in a 7.62 chamber, I can ONLY take milspec. In other words, .308 in a milsurp AK is bad news... but .223 AND 5.56 is fine in a milsurp AR/M4. I get more options with an AR/M4.

    I suppose the other option here is to search around for an AK chambered in .308 your not going to find a AK in .308, .308 is 7.62x51 NATO and will not cross under any circumstances with 7.62x39 shortrussian.so that I can fire both 7.62 and .308... but this leads me to the next two issues: Weight and popularity. 5.56/.223 is lighter... meaning more can be carried which means you have to shoot the guy more times. Also, most American LEO's and military use 5.56/.223 battle feild pickups are free up to and includeing rifles... said ammo could be easier to come by longer term. .308 winchester (7.62x51 NATO) is actually the more popular round in the US with civilians and LEO the military just has there head up their ass.

    Stopping power? Not my primary issue. I know it sounds stupid... but it's really not. Your call but I like stoping power. I mean, it's not like we're talking about .22 versus .357 or anything. I chalk up the difference between 5.56/.223 vs 7.62/.308 as being similar to 9mm vs .40 inour world with ammo choices it doesn't matter in the military world wereball ammo is the only choice give me a .40that one IS stronger than the other, but both will get the job done in most circumstances.One is stronger than the other and if you read the reports form the feild military ball ammo doesn't work that well. The best documention i think is the book Black Hawk down. Several comments were made in the after action of the faliure of the military ball ammo. and current reports from the feild are the same. the only thing it does well sometimes is punch through body armour.

    The final determination is that I just feel more comfortable with an AR platform; being ex-military. Quite literally, I can bust one down and put it back together with my eyes closed and I wouldn't have to think twice about what to do in the event of a jam. Can't knock that reason becuase I can do the same but I still think its a piece of crap rifle with better 5.56 options out there

    I like M4's a whole lot... I really do. But I think the AR is just a tad more versatile. The extra 2" on the barrel, I think, is more important in improving accuracy than it is detrimental to the maneuverability of the weapon itself. They both shoot out to 500 yds. just fine with iron sites and with an ACOG even better.

    As for the Garand... I think I'd rather have a WWII model. Not sure it'd be something I'd really fire... it's more or less something I'd like to have "just 'cause". And Character in a gun wins the day again.

    I'm very much open to suggestions if anyone can find fault in my logic. Basically, I'm just looking for a good all-purpose defensive weapon where finding and carrying ammo won't be an issue longer-term.

    As for shotguns, my mind is open to suggestions there as well. So far, my heart is set on the Benelli M4. But as someone pointed out, the Mossberg 930 SPX may be a contender. One thing is for certain: I want semi-auto. Stock pistol grip isn't a dealbreaker, as I can always install an after-market one later. I'd prefer 12-gauge too. The M4 is really nice I'm not shure how the civlian version is but the military takes down and goes together really quick. I'd stick with that if your dead set on a semi-auto. Personally I'd go with a 870, M4, and than Mossberg 500 that order all in 12 ga.

    Location:
    PDinDetroit wrote: [/b]
    I believe that the 5.56 NATO loses some effectiveness past 300 yards...
    You're right... I don't know what I was thinking when I wrote 800. I believe the actual MER is in the ballpark of 500; but anything past 300 being pretty subjective. In the service, we trained out to 300 yards with them and even then, the arc was pretty steep. The Corps takes it out to 500 no problems and with a scope theres civlians that shoot 600 and a 1000 no problem. I shure wouldn't want to take it that far thought.

    But, realistically, I don't anticipate needing anything longer than this. I'm adding to this my arsenal as a home defense weapon to protect against the threat of multiple targets. I don't plan on every having to fire it anything more than 75 to 100 yards away; at most. Average Iraqi sniper shot on US personal is 36yds. urban enviroments are a B*tch.

    A Mosin-Nagant 91/30 is pretty inexpensive. I'm kicking around the idea of buying one to cover longer-range needs "just in case". Why!, every thing is so thought out andat least reasonable even if idon't agree with you until here. Were do you think your going to get a steady supply of 7.62x54R. Get a $300 remington 700 when they go on sale this fall at Gander Mtn. and get itchambered in .30-06 if you want to shoot long range. .30-06 ammo isstilla popular round at there has tobe huge stashes of the stuff out there still. Or just use a Garand some still contendits the finest battle rifle ever made.But as I said before, my goal is to try to limit the number of weapons I own to just the bare essentials. Assault rifle, shotgun, and pistols... limited to two calibers (.40 cal for pistols, .223/5.56 for rifle). I'm only one man... I don't want to have lug around an entire arsenal if I ever gotta head for the hills. :-P You know were i stand on the 5.56 (go 7.62x51-.308) why .40 your trying to go readily avalible ammo that means either .45 ACP or 9mm. .40 S&W is a fine round but its following is to small to really make it viable. I like .45 ACP myself.

    Who else has opinions I know were notthe only two that think this way.




  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,416

    Post imported post

    the500kid wrote:
    ...

    I suppose the other option here is to search around for an AK chambered in .308 your not going to find a AK in .308, .308 is 7.62x51 NATO and will not cross under any circumstances with 7.62x39 shortrussian....
    I don't understand this part. I can't believe that he's thinking that he can run .308 or 7.62x51 in a 7.62x39 chamber or gun. I thought that he meant to have two separate guns (both AK's. One in 7.62x39, the other in .308/7.62x51). There are enough AK variants out there chambered in .308 that take 7.63x51. Why would you think he will have a hard time finding a AK chambered in .308?





  3. #3
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337

    Post imported post

    I think there are too many variables to emphatically state what is the "best".

    I have a Mosin Nagant 91/30 and 5000 rounds of ammunition... the definition of cheap, btw. I realize after the 5,000 rounds of mil surplus is gone, I may have difficulties but I would tend to think it would last me awhile. I can "modify" my ammo too, if I want to do more than punch holes in things. Corrosive ammo lasts forever and I think that the "exploding ball of flames" would tend to test the willingness of anyone to attack my home. But, it is heavy and lugging around my ammo would not be fun. Ballistically, I think the choice of the 7.62x54r is more than adequate and I am a very good shot with this rifle. My rifle shoots well even though I have dropped it in the field, lost it a while in a creek, and have treated it so poorly.
    The 30-06 is fine and I can do that too. It is a very common round, ballistics are excellent and the ability to scrounge ammo puts this one in a good category. Any of the rounds/firearms mentioned would be more than adequate, just acknowledge its shortcomings and make plans to mitigate them.
    For moving around, though, nothing would beat my .22. Yep, that's right, my .22. I certainly would take it. Can carry 50+ rounds in one pocket, ammo is available evrywhere, even seems to be the only thing I can find if everything else is gone from the shelves. Low report helps keep me hidden; being able to take game for the pot whilst I hide out certainly helps, and some of the high velocity stuff out of a small rifle can serve at least as well as some pistol rounds. Cost is definitely a plus here too.

    Depending on the particular scenario, every round has advantages and disadvantages. The real test is to know the limits of what you wish to utilize and work within those tolerances.
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Flint, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    13

    Post imported post

    A .308 in an AK platform is a hoot on the range. They work good in the field too.



  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Oakland County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    662

    Post imported post

    the500kid wrote:
    your not going to find a AK in .308, .308 is 7.62x51 NATO and will not cross under any circumstances with 7.62x39 shortrussian.

    Perhaps I am mistaken then... but I thought the larger chamber in a .308 was capable of handling the 7.62 NATO; but not the other way around? I also understood that it is possible to chamber an AK in .308, but that they are harder to come by than the mislpec? This was part of my rationale behind wanting a 5.56 rifle.

    which means you have to shoot the guy more times.

    I believe this is a negligible point. Maybe if I'm pumping lead into a guy with body armor, sure. But if defending my home against the average person (looter, robber, etc), they probably won't be wearing body armor. And whether I'm firing 5.56 or 7.62, I'm probably double and triple tapping the trigger anyway. Point being is that my goal would be to neutralize the threat. A guy laying on the ground clutching his chest is a neutralized threat. I don't have to smear his guts all over the wall behind him, nor risk firing through his body and hitting objects behind him, to stop a lethal advance.

    battle feild pickups are free up to and includeing rifles

    Understood. But I don't want to plan on needing battlefield pickups in order to ensure I'm supplied. And call me crazy, but I would also hope I'd be working in support of law enforcement and military, rather than against them. Moreso law enforcement than anything, as most local LEO's live, and keep families, in the areas they patrol... so I think our interests would be on the same side of the table. To be able to exchange ammo could be a plus.

    .308 winchester (7.62x51 NATO) is actually the more popular round in the US with civilians and LEO

    If this is indeed true, then it will probably weigh heavily on my decision. Can you link me to a source that confirms this?

    Can't knock that reason becuase I can do the same but I still think its a piece of crap rifle with better 5.56 options out there

    Assuming I stick with 5.56, what weapon would you recommend then? And assuming I change my mind to 7.62 or .308, what would you recommend?

    I'm not claiming to have all the answers... I'm honestly just spitting out my rationale and looking for faults with it. So I do appreciate the feedback.

    They both shoot out to 500 yds. just fine with iron sites and with an ACOG even better.

    If you can link me to a source confirming an EFFECTIVE 500 yard range for both rifles, then the answer would be simple: M4 all the way. Why carry the extra length if I get the same effect at 500 yards?

    The M4 is really nice I'm not shure how the civlian version is but the military takes down and goes together really quick. I'd stick with that if your dead set on a semi-auto. Personally I'd go with a 870, M4, and than Mossberg 500 that order all in 12 ga.

    From what I've been able to discern through reviews read, the civilian M4 is fundamentally the same as the military M4. I am, however, interested in hearing your rationale for choosing an 870 over an M4.

    Average Iraqi sniper shot on US personal is 36yds. urban enviroments are a B*tch.

    Exactly... which is why I don't want to invest a whole lot of money (if any at all) into a long range rifle. If I can pull 75 to 100 yards with accuracy... I think it would be more than enough to meet any needs I may face in an urban or suburban environment. I'm planning a home defense system... not planning to head overseas into a desert or jungle. :-P

    Why!, every thing is so thought out andat least reasonable even if idon't agree with you until here. Were do you think your going to get a steady supply of 7.62x54R. Get a $300 remington 700 when they go on sale this fall at Gander Mtn. and get itchambered in .30-06 if you want to shoot long range. .30-06 ammo isstilla popular round at there has tobe huge stashes of the stuff out there still. Or just use a Garand some still contendits the finest battle rifle ever made.

    My rationale is that I'm not even sure I want a long range rifle... so if I'm going to buy one, it should be as inexpensive as possible; yet still proven to be effective. Mosin-Nagants can be had for $100 or less and are a very fine weapon. As for the ammuniton itself, I wouldn't anticipate needing a whole lot of it. A hunded rounds would probably be more than I'd ever need. Again, home protection is my purpose... I wouldn't really be protecting my home if I'm throwing lead 1,100 yards down the line.

    why .40 your trying to go readily avalible ammo that means either .45 ACP or 9mm. .40 S&W is a fine round but its following is to small to really make it viable. I like .45 ACP myself.


    When I bought my first pistol, I was torn between the .40 S&W and the .45 ACP... but ultimately went with the .40 because I think it's a good blend between the 9mm and .45. I get better accuracy than a .45 but more stopping power than a 9mm. It's also not too powerful... I don't have to worry so much about what's standing behind my target... nor do I have to worry so much about ricochets in the event that I miss my target completely.

    At the time, cost was a consideration too. .45 ammo was considerably more than .40 caliber... and I thought to myself that if ammo was too expensive, that I'd spend less time training. So again, the .40 won in this category as well.

    I realize now what a PITA .40 cal is to get... but it's not impossible yet. Plus, I'm implenting measures to produce my own ammo anyway... so I'm hoping that little issue won't be an issue for much longer.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Oakland County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    662

    Post imported post

    ghostrider wrote:
    the500kid wrote:
    ...

    I suppose the other option here is to search around for an AK chambered in .308 your not going to find a AK in .308, .308 is 7.62x51 NATO and will not cross under any circumstances with 7.62x39 shortrussian....
    I don't understand this part. I can't believe that he's thinking that he can run .308 or 7.62x51 in a 7.62x39 chamber or gun. I thought that he meant to have two separate guns (both AK's. One in 7.62x39, the other in .308/7.62x51). There are enough AK variants out there chambered in .308 that take 7.63x51. Why would you think he will have a hard time finding a AK chambered in .308?



    I was talking about one gun... an AK chambered in .308 with the ability to accept 7.62 NATO.

    Again, I could be mistaken, but I was positive that it was okay to fire 7.62 NATO through a .308 chamber... but NOT the other way around?

    If this information is faulty, then is my understanding of .223 being fired through 5.56 chamber faulty as well? Again, I understand that this is okay, but it is NOT okay to fire 5.56 through a .223 chamber.

    If anyone can clear this up, I'd be much obliged.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Oakland County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    662

    Post imported post

    Lumpy wrote:
    A .308 in an AK platform is a hoot on the range. They work good in the field too.

    Well there's one myth settled then. You CAN chamber an AK in .308. The question remains, however, as to whether or not you safely can shoot a 7.62 NATO through it?

    And what's the MSRP on that little girl?

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Oakland County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    662

    Post imported post

    DrTodd wrote:
    Low report helps keep me hidden; being able to take game for the pot whilst I hide out certainly helps, and some of the high velocity stuff out of a small rifle can serve at least as well as some pistol rounds. Cost is definitely a plus here too.
    That's actually a really good point that I hadn't considered: Sound.

    My neighborhood is home to tons of edible critters... squirrel, rabbit, and even deer. Not that I'd try to take a deer with a .22... but squirrel and rabbit, if push came to shove, would be plausible. The last thing I'd want to do, if forced to hunt food in my own yard, would be to alert the world.

    Damnit... that might be something I'll have to incorporate in there somehow. Perhaps a .22 long rifle in place of a higher caliber long range rifle. Again, I'm leaning heavily towards NOT taking on a long range rifle anyway... so I wouldn't feel like I'm giving anything up.

  9. #9
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336

    Post imported post

    Veritas wrote:
    DrTodd wrote:
    Low report helps keep me hidden; being able to take game for the pot whilst I hide out certainly helps, and some of the high velocity stuff out of a small rifle can serve at least as well as some pistol rounds. Cost is definitely a plus here too.
    That's actually a really good point that I hadn't considered: Sound.

    My neighborhood is home to tons of edible critters... squirrel, rabbit, and even deer. Not that I'd try to take a deer with a .22... but squirrel and rabbit, if push came to shove, would be plausible. The last thing I'd want to do, if forced to hunt food in my own yard, would be to alert the world.

    Damnit... that might be something I'll have to incorporate in there somehow. Perhaps a .22 long rifle in place of a higher caliber long range rifle. Again, I'm leaning heavily towards NOT taking on a long range rifle anyway... so I wouldn't feel like I'm giving anything up.
    Ruger 10/22 and some extra mags! You can find them for $199. 500 Rounds of 36 Grain Ammo is $20! Gun eats just about anything. Your kids, when you decide to have them, will be passing that gun to their grandkids. I like them so much I have 2!

    You and I need to go shooting sometime...

    Rights are like muscles. You must EXERCISE THEM to keep them from becoming atrophied.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Oakland County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    662

    Post imported post

    PDinDetroit wrote:
    Ruger 10/22 and some extra mags! You can find them for $199. 500 Rounds of 36 Grain Ammo is $20! Gun eats just about anything. Your kids, when you decide to have them, will be passing that gun to their grandkids. I like them so much I have 2!

    You and I need to go shooting sometime...
    For sure. Where do you shoot at?

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Kalamazoo, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    576

    Post imported post

    Might i suggest that you use a ar15 in 5.56 then it can shoot 223 and with the cmmg conversion kit which take less than a minute to change you can shoot 22 long rifle.

    PSST that is what i have........

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Westland, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    135

    Post imported post

    Veritas wrote:
    I was talking about one gun... an AK chambered in .308 with the ability to accept 7.62 NATO.

    Again, I could be mistaken, but I was positive that it was okay to fire 7.62 NATO through a .308 chamber... but NOT the other way around?

    If this information is faulty, then is my understanding of .223 being fired through 5.56 chamber faulty as well? Again, I understand that this is okay, but it is NOT okay to fire 5.56 through a .223 chamber.

    If anyone can clear this up, I'd be much obliged.
    I stand corrected on an AK in .308 my opologies.

    As far as Metric to English Chamberings go you can shoot the english throught a metric but not the other way around. I.e. .223 throught 5.56 chamber, but not 5.56 throught .223. same with the .308 throught a 7.62 Nato but not 7.62 Nato throught a .308.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Oakland County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    662

    Post imported post

    the500kid wrote:
    I stand corrected on an AK in .308 my opologies.

    As far as Metric to English Chamberings go you can shoot the english throught a metric but not the other way around. I.e. .223 throught 5.56 chamber, but not 5.56 throught .223. same with the .308 throught a 7.62 Nato but not 7.62 Nato throught a .308.
    Okay so then I'm correct about the AR15 then.

    But you're saying that I CAN'T shoot 7.62 through .308, but that I CAN shoot .308 through 7.62? If this is the case, then logic defies me looking for an AK chambered in .308... right? Is it that the pressure of the 7.62 is too high for the .308?

    This is really my dilemma... figuring this out. Someone just give this to me straight with a yes or no:

    1) Shoot .223 through 5.56 chamber. I think yes.

    2) Shoot 5.56 through a .223 chamber. I think no.

    So in this case, you'd want a 5.56 chamber so you can fire BOTH. Yes?

    3) Shoot .308 through a 7.62. I thought no.

    4) Shoot 7.62 through a .308 chamber. I thought yes.

    So in this case, you'd want a .308 chamber so you can fire BOTH. So I thought?



    Residual questions:

    -- What are the price differences between 7.62 vs 5.56, and .308 vs .223? Details are not necessary... just help me determine which one is more expensive.

    -- What's easier to get your hands on (without regards to price... just straight up popularity/availability)?

    If it turns out that 7.62/.308 is less expensive and easier to come by, then I'm going with AK. If it turns out that 7.62/.308 is less expensive but harder to come by, then i have to weigh other options. If 5.56/.223 is cheaper and easier to come by, then I'm going with AR/M4. If it's less expensive and harder to come by, then I have to weigh other options.

    I'll deal with the clambering issues later. Unless there is a compelling argument that there is a disparity between 7.62 and .308 or 5.56 and .223 in price or availability. But I'd think they'd work in tandem (that is to say, one shouldn't be more expensive or in less supply than it's virtual equivalent).

    At this point, I'm up in the air on either. If all things are equal, I may swing towards AK just because of the increased stopping power. But that's not my primary issue.

  14. #14
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336

    Post imported post

    Veritas wrote:
    For sure. Where do you shoot at?
    I go to Double-Action locally for an indoor range (14 & Dequindre). It is 50 yards and I shoot my own ammo if I want (Target Sports does not allow this). They do not allow Open Carry, so I have been going there less since it is nice out.

    I go to the Lapeer Gravel Pit for an outdoor range. It is part of the Lapeer State Game Area and target shooting is A-OK there for anything LEGAL you can own/shoot. It is about 1 hr North of me.

    Directions: I-75 to M-24 (Lapeer Road, Palace Exit), 1-2 miles North of Lapeer - Turn Right on Daley Road (only goes right), 2 Miles East - Turn Left on Roods Lake Road (Elementary School on Left), 2 Miles North (past dragstrip) - parking and gravel pit will be on the right.

    I look to be there on this Thursday, starting around 7-7:30 PM with a few people as well. You are welcome to join us (this means YOU!).

    BONUS: The Walmart in Lapeer is 24 hours and always seems to have the ammo I need!
    Rights are like muscles. You must EXERCISE THEM to keep them from becoming atrophied.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Oakland County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    662

    Post imported post

    PDinDetroit wrote:
    I go to Double-Action locally for an indoor range (14 & Dequindre). It is 50 yards and I shoot my own ammo if I want (Target Sports does not allow this). They do not allow Open Carry, so I have been going there less since it is nice out.

    I go to the Lapeer Gravel Pit for an outdoor range. It is part of the Lapeer State Game Area and target shooting is A-OK there for anything LEGAL you can own/shoot. It is about 1 hr North of me.

    Directions: I-75 to M-24 (Lapeer Road, Palace Exit), 1-2 miles North of Lapeer - Turn Right on Daley Road (only goes right), 2 Miles East - Turn Left on Roods Lake Road (Elementary School on Left), 2 Miles North (past dragstrip) - parking and gravel pit will be on the right.

    I look to be there on this Thursday, starting around 7-7:30 PM with a few people as well. You are welcome to join us (this means YOU!).

    BONUS: The Walmart in Lapeer is 24 hours and always seems to have the ammo I need!
    I usually shoot at Double Action. When I'm visiting friends south of Detroit, I usually go to Top Gun.

    I hear there's an outdoor range in Brighten somewhere... may be closer than Lapeer.

    Schedule-wise, I don't see any availability until next weekend.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,416

    Post imported post

    Veritas wrote:
    ghostrider wrote:
    the500kid wrote:
    ...

    I suppose the other option here is to search around for an AK chambered in .308 your not going to find a AK in .308, .308 is 7.62x51 NATO and will not cross under any circumstances with 7.62x39 shortrussian....
    I don't understand this part. I can't believe that he's thinking that he can run .308 or 7.62x51 in a 7.62x39 chamber or gun. I thought that he meant to have two separate guns (both AK's. One in 7.62x39, the other in .308/7.62x51). There are enough AK variants out there chambered in .308 that take 7.63x51. Why would you think he will have a hard time finding a AK chambered in .308?



    I was talking about one gun... an AK chambered in .308 with the ability to accept 7.62 NATO.

    Again, I could be mistaken, but I was positive that it was okay to fire 7.62 NATO through a .308 chamber... but NOT the other way around?

    If this information is faulty, then is my understanding of .223 being fired through 5.56 chamber faulty as well? Again, I understand that this is okay, but it is NOT okay to fire 5.56 through a .223 chamber.

    If anyone can clear this up, I'd be much obliged.
    Then I don't know where the mix up came from. To put things in context, I know that your not a complete newbie to firearms, so I didn't understand why he thought you would think that a .308 or 7.62x51 would run in a 7.62x39, which is what he was talking about (... I think?) when he said:
    your not going to find a AK in .308, .308 is 7.62x51 NATO and will not cross under any circumstances with 7.62x39 short russian.

    BTW:

    Yes, the Siaga does take both .308, and 7.62x51. I can't remember which one has the higher pressure, but I'd guess it's the NATO round, so I'd say you shouldn't run 7.62x51 in a .308 only chamber (check with a gunsmith before testing this theory, cause I'm not positive).

    Also keep in mind, they come in I think three different barrel lengths, and the 16" barrel puts out an impressive fireball (about three feet by six feet on a bright sunny day). I highly recommend researching the forums at Siaga12.com before buying, but they are worth it.

    I'm also guessing that since you appear to have been previously unaware of the Siaga .308, that you probably aren't aware of the same gun chambered in 12, and 20 gauge, as well as .410 bore. High cap mags can be had for the 12 gauge. Not exactly my thing, but if I had the disposable income, I'd get one as I think the idea of a 12 gauge built on an AK format is cool (I've shot one, and the recoil is surprisingly low).

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Centennial, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,412

    Post imported post

    I was under the impression that you normally can't (or shouldn't) shoot 5.56 through a gun chambered for .223 is that 5.56 can be loaded hotter, and a .223 gun may not be able to handle the pressures, not due to any size differences. Is that wrong?

  18. #18
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336

    Post imported post

    FogRider wrote:
    I was under the impression that you normally can't (or shouldn't) shoot 5.56 through a gun chambered for .223 is that 5.56 can be loaded hotter, and a .223 gun may not be able to handle the pressures, not due to any size differences. Is that wrong?
    http://www.saami.org/Unsafe_Combinations.cfm

    General Info Gleaned:
    5.56 in .223 - NO (higher pressures)
    .223 in 5.56 - YES (possibly less accurate)
    7.62 in .308 - YES
    .308 in 7.62 - NO (chamber longer, commercial brass thinner)

    http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/amm...7-62-nato.html
    Rights are like muscles. You must EXERCISE THEM to keep them from becoming atrophied.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Oakland County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    662

    Post imported post

    ghostrider wrote:
    Then I don't know where the mix up came from. To put things in context, I know that your not a complete newbie to firearms, so I didn't understand why he thought you would think that a .308 or 7.62x51 would run in a 7.62x39, which is what he was talking about (... I think?) when he said:
    your not going to find a AK in .308, .308 is 7.62x51 NATO and will not cross under any circumstances with 7.62x39 short russian.
    I think I'm understanding now. When I'm referring to 7.62, I'm referring to NATO not Intermediate. I think when I typed "7.62 NATO", and then later, abridged it to just "7.62", he might've thought I was talking about Intermediate.

    Just to clarify, I am referring to 7.62 NATO in all of my posts.

    Does this change anything now?

    I believe 7.62 NATO is higher pressure than .308... which, when I first read that 7.62 could be fired through .308, I thought it seemed amiss. However, I read multiple sources that said you absolutely should not fire .308 through 7.62, but that it was safe to fire 7.62 through .308. One opinion was even careful to mention that it was the exact polar opposite of interchanging 5.56 and .223.

    My friggin' head hurts, man.

    My qualms are these: I just don't want to buy a rifle that I will not be able to find, or afford, ammunition for. That's it. I want the rifle that is going to allow me the most ammunition options at the best price.

    If they come to out to be even, then I'd be tempted to take the AK because the price of the weapon itself is buy half of an AR/M4... plus it has greater stopping power. But then, as you pointed out, the flash could be an issue. I'm not much for giving my position away... nor being blinded by a 6 foot fireball when night firing.

  20. #20
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336

    Post imported post

    Veritas, when you go to buy, just make sure of the following:

    Buy a .308 Winchester Rifle, which will allow .308 Winchester and 7.62 NATO.
    Buy a 5.56 NATO Rifle, which will allow 5.56 NATO and .223 Remington.

    Simple instructions for complicated people (I qualify).

    BTW - ammo from cheapest to most expensive (generally):
    .22 LR ($0.04 per round)
    5.56 NATO ($0.43 per round)
    .223 Remington ($0.50 per round)
    7.62 NATO ($0.70 per round)
    .308 Winchester ($0.90 per round)

    THESE ARE NOT WOLF AMMO PRICES!!!
    Rights are like muscles. You must EXERCISE THEM to keep them from becoming atrophied.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,416

    Post imported post

    Veritas wrote:
    ghostrider wrote:
    Then I don't know where the mix up came from. To put things in context, I know that your not a complete newbie to firearms, so I didn't understand why he thought you would think that a .308 or 7.62x51 would run in a 7.62x39, which is what he was talking about (... I think?) when he said:
    your not going to find a AK in .308, .308 is 7.62x51 NATO and will not cross under any circumstances with 7.62x39 short russian.
    I think I'm understanding now. When I'm referring to 7.62, I'm referring to NATO not Intermediate. I think when I typed "7.62 NATO", and then later, abridged it to just "7.62", he might've thought I was talking about Intermediate.

    Just to clarify, I am referring to 7.62 NATO in all of my posts.

    Does this change anything now?

    I believe 7.62 NATO is higher pressure than .308... which, when I first read that 7.62 could be fired through .308, I thought it seemed amiss. However, I read multiple sources that said you absolutely should not fire .308 through 7.62, but that it was safe to fire 7.62 through .308. One opinion was even careful to mention that it was the exact polar opposite of interchanging 5.56 and .223.

    My friggin' head hurts, man.

    My qualms are these: I just don't want to buy a rifle that I will not be able to find, or afford, ammunition for. That's it. I want the rifle that is going to allow me the most ammunition options at the best price.

    If they come to out to be even, then I'd be tempted to take the AK because the price of the weapon itself is buy half of an AR/M4... plus it has greater stopping power. But then, as you pointed out, the flash could be an issue. I'm not much for giving my position away... nor being blinded by a 6 foot fireball when night firing.
    Like I said, the Siaga .308 is chambered for both (says so right on the receiver), so no worries there. People shoot both comercial .308, and surplas 7.62x51 out of them all the time.

    I'd guess the fireball probably isn't so much of a problem with the longer barrels. Also, there are some outfits out there that make flash suppressors for them however, they do require some smiting to put them on. I don't know the others (like I said, check out Siaga12.com), but google "tromix". He makes a cool flash suppressor.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Oakland County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    662

    Post imported post

    PDinDetroit wrote:
    Veritas, when you go to buy, just make sure of the following:

    Buy a .308 Winchester Rifle, which will allow .308 Winchester and 7.62 NATO.
    Buy a 5.56 NATO Rifle, which will allow 5.56 NATO and .223 Remington.

    Simple instructions for complicated people (I qualify).

    BTW - ammo from cheapest to most expensive (generally):
    .22 LR ($0.04 per round)
    5.56 NATO ($0.43 per round)
    .223 Remington ($0.50 per round)
    7.62 NATO ($0.70 per round)
    .308 Winchester ($0.90 per round)

    THESE ARE NOT WOLF AMMO PRICES!!!
    Okay so your assertion is precisely as I understood it to begin with lol

    A .308 chambered AK can take both .308 and 7.62 NATO, and a 5.56 chambered AR/M4 can take both 5.56 and .223.

    So, in summary, stay away from .223 AR/M4's and 7.62 AK's.

    And given the price of ammunition, I'm right back to leaning towards an AR/M4. Plus, as someone mentioned, I can swap it to take .22... which would make plinking a heck of a lot cheaper, as well as solve the issue of being able to hunt small game quietly. AND I get the added benefit of reduced muzzle flash, and retain my comfort level with the weapon, having already been trained with it.

    Thank you all for your input!!!!

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Oakland County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    662

    Post imported post

    ghostrider wrote:
    Like I said, the Siaga .308 is chambered for both (says so right on the receiver), so no worries there. People shoot both comercial .308, and surplas 7.62x51 out of them all the time.

    I'd guess the fireball probably isn't so much of a problem with the longer barrels. Also, there are some outfits out there that make flash suppressors for them however, they do require some smiting to put them on. I don't know the others (like I said, check out Siaga12.com), but google "tromix". He makes a cool flash suppressor.
    Sweet weapon, and the price is attractive... but ammo is darn near double the price. Once I get to about 2,500 rounds (or so) in AR/M4 ammo, I would have recouped the money I'd have saved by buying an AK. Since I plan to harbor more than 2,500 rounds, the answer becomes even easier.

    AR/M4 all the way, baby!

    Thanks again, folks!

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,416

    Post imported post

    Veritas wrote:
    ghostrider wrote:
    Like I said, the Siaga .308 is chambered for both (says so right on the receiver), so no worries there. People shoot both comercial .308, and surplas 7.62x51 out of them all the time.

    I'd guess the fireball probably isn't so much of a problem with the longer barrels. Also, there are some outfits out there that make flash suppressors for them however, they do require some smiting to put them on. I don't know the others (like I said, check out Siaga12.com), but google "tromix". He makes a cool flash suppressor.
    Sweet weapon, and the price is attractive... but ammo is darn near double the price. Once I get to about 2,500 rounds (or so) in AR/M4 ammo, I would have recouped the money I'd have saved by buying an AK. Since I plan to harbor more than 2,500 rounds, the answer becomes even easier.

    AR/M4 all the way, baby!

    Thanks again, folks!
    Nothing wrong with that decision.

    However, you do realize that you'll most likely eventually get both.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Westland, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    135

    Post imported post

    For the recored this was typed up last night but then I couldn't post it I see you've moved on but more points to ponder.

    Veritas wrote:
    the500kid wrote:
    your not going to find a AK in .308, .308 is 7.62x51 NATO and will not cross under any circumstances with 7.62x39 shortrussian.

    Perhaps I am mistaken then... but I thought the larger chamber in a .308 was capable of handling the 7.62 NATO; but not the other way around? I also understood that it is possible to chamber an AK in .308, but that they are harder to come by than the mislpec? This was part of my rationale behind wanting a 5.56 rifle.

    Again my opologies on the AK in .308 I stand corrected. But again any way you decided to go get it Chambered in the NATO/ Metric so it will take both milspec and civlian ammo.


    which means you have to shoot the guy more times.

    I believe this is a negligible point. Maybe if I'm pumping lead into a guy with body armor, sure. But if defending my home against the average person (looter, robber, etc), they probably won't be wearing body armor. And whether I'm firing 5.56 or 7.62, I'm probably double and triple tapping the trigger anyway. Point being is that my goal would be to neutralize the threat. A guy laying on the ground clutching his chest is a neutralized threat. I don't have to smear his guts all over the wall behind him, nor risk firing through his body and hitting objects behind him, to stop a lethal advance.

    Point taken. Most people in the states will not be druged up like they are over seas and if shot will usually fall down.

    battle feild pickups are free up to and includeing rifles

    Understood. But I don't want to plan on needing battlefield pickups in order to ensure I'm supplied. And call me crazy, but I would also hope I'd be working in support of law enforcement and military, rather than against them. Moreso law enforcement than anything, as most local LEO's live, and keep families, in the areas they patrol... so I think our interests would be on the same side of the table. To be able to exchange ammo could be a plus.

    You might be crazy you might not depends on how the situation pans out. But sound thining none the less.

    .308 winchester (7.62x51 NATO) is actually the more popular round in the US with civilians and LEO

    If this is indeed true, then it will probably weigh heavily on my decision. Can you link me to a source that confirms this?

    I'll have to do some digging throught my stacks of gun magazines to give you that stat. and refrence. give me a few days.

    Can't knock that reason becuase I can do the same but I still think its a piece of crap rifle with better 5.56 options out there

    Assuming I stick with 5.56, what weapon would you recommend then? And assuming I change my mind to 7.62 or .308, what would you recommend?

    I again would either go with the SIG 5.56 based off the Swiss Armies rifle. Witch is nothing more than a vastly improved AK platform for the 5.56. Or the FN SCAR has really good reports form Afganistan from the National Gaurd units that used them (until the Pentagon forced them back to the M-16 platform) both take standard AR/M-16 mags so that is not really a worry there.

    If you did decide to go with 7.62 nato I would go with either the Springfeilds Squad Scout (or socoom if you want an even shorter barrel) FN SCAR in 7.62 NATO (what a great company they make kick ass machine guns too but i digress) or an AR-10 or variation. Which is what a AR-15/M-16 was desined for was the larger 7.62 round. I hear good things about it so being ex-military you might consider this route since everythings the same just bigger.

    I'm not claiming to have all the answers... I'm honestly just spitting out my rationale and looking for faults with it. So I do appreciate the feedback.

    I'm not claiming to have all the answers you usually find two diffrent schools of thought though the 5.56 Nato vs 7.62 Nato and 9mm vs 45 acp. neither are really right neither are really wrong. Some people just think one works better over the other. I favor the bigger calabers do to battlefeild reports.

    They both shoot out to 500 yds. just fine with iron sites and with an ACOG even better.

    If you can link me to a source confirming an EFFECTIVE 500 yard range for both rifles, then the answer would be simple: M4 all the way. Why carry the extra length if I get the same effect at 500 yards?

    Do i need to do better than a USMC range book or Coachs book. Does personal experience of watching mulitple Marines hit on black on a B mod target at 500yds count. Go M4 if thats the rout you think you will take the ease of use (i.e. being smaller) plus the 2 lbs lighter that it weighs is definatly worth it.

    The M4 is really nice I'm not shure how the civlian version is but the military takes down and goes together really quick. I'd stick with that if your dead set on a semi-auto. Personally I'd go with a 870, M4, and than Mossberg 500 that order all in 12 ga.

    From what I've been able to discern through reviews read, the civilian M4 is fundamentally the same as the military M4. I think the only real diff is the civilian model has a diffrent type of telescopeing stock. other than that its the same.

    I am, however, interested in hearing your rationale for choosing an 870 over an M4.


    This is simpily a personal opinion and probably unfounded bias but The 870 is less likely to jam and it always goes bang. M4 shotguns being semi auto are more likely to jam failure to eject (althought I've personaly never seen it, unlike the way to many jams i've seen on the M-16/M4's just on ranges) Gas ports get dirty filled with crud. the 870 just has the reputation of being a more rugged gun (think of it as the AK-47 of shotguns) Again more personal bias than anything both are great guns.

    Average Iraqi sniper shot on US personal is 36yds. urban enviroments are a B*tch.

    Exactly... which is why I don't want to invest a whole lot of money (if any at all) into a long range rifle. If I can pull 75 to 100 yards with accuracy... I think it would be more than enough to meet any needs I may face in an urban or suburban environment. I'm planning a home defense system... not planning to head overseas into a desert or jungle. :-P

    If push came to shove a shotgun with slugs would probably suffice.

    Why!, every thing is so thought out andat least reasonable even if idon't agree with you until here. Were do you think your going to get a steady supply of 7.62x54R. Get a $300 remington 700 when they go on sale this fall at Gander Mtn. and get itchambered in .30-06 if you want to shoot long range. .30-06 ammo isstilla popular round at there has tobe huge stashes of the stuff out there still. Or just use a Garand some still contendits the finest battle rifle ever made.

    My rationale is that I'm not even sure I want a long range rifle... so if I'm going to buy one, it should be as inexpensive as possible; yet still proven to be effective. Mosin-Nagants can be had for $100 or less and are a very fine weapon. As for the ammuniton itself, I wouldn't anticipate needing a whole lot of it. A hunded rounds would probably be more than I'd ever need. Again, home protection is my purpose... I wouldn't really be protecting my home if I'm throwing lead 1,100 yards down the line.

    Thats fine rational can't argue with it really.


    why .40 your trying to go readily avalible ammo that means either .45 ACP or 9mm. .40 S&W is a fine round but its following is to small to really make it viable. I like .45 ACP myself.


    When I bought my first pistol, I was torn between the .40 S&W and the .45 ACP... but ultimately went with the .40 because I think it's a good blend between the 9mm and .45. I get better accuracy than a .45 but more stopping power than a 9mm. It's also not too powerful... I don't have to worry so much about what's standing behind my target... nor do I have to worry so much about ricochets in the event that I miss my target completely.

    At the time, cost was a consideration too. .45 ammo was considerably more than .40 caliber... and I thought to myself that if ammo was too expensive, that I'd spend less time training. So again, the .40 won in this category as well.

    I realize now what a PITA .40 cal is to get... but it's not impossible yet. Plus, I'm implenting measures to produce my own ammo anyway... so I'm hoping that little issue won't be an issue for much longer.

    I can't kncock a gun choice if you shoot better with it since hits are the only thing that matter.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •