Survival guns for a minamilist

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.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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!!!

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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!

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

And thats were some of the mix up came in most people I talk to when they say 7.62 mean the intermediate not the NATO. I should have known better with Veritas thought.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

I'm going to have to go back and doulbe check on this now that we all have each other guessing unless some one elss can give us a rock solid source. I've alway heared get the rifle chambered for the NATO round what ever that might be so it will should both the NATO and civilian because it won't work to well for you otherwise.

Click to expand...

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).

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.Acctually I knew about the 12, 20, and .410 models some how the .308 sliped past meI'd never seen or heared of an AK in .308.That's slightly unnerving because i look at that kind of stuff a lot.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).

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

And thats were some of the mix up came in most people I talk to when they say 7.62 mean the intermediate not the NATO. I should have known better with Veritas thought.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

I'm going to have to go back and doulbe check on this now that we all have each other guessing unless some one elss can give us a rock solid source. I've alway heared get the rifle chambered for the NATO round what ever that might be so it will should both the NATO and civilian because it won't work to well for you otherwise.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Lumpy wrote:

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

Click to expand...

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?


I just did a quick search at GunsAmerica and it looks like they are running between $5-700. Mine started out in a traditional hunting style stock and I converted it over to more of an AK look. I had to add some American made parts to stay on the legal side of things.

Next time you hear someone say that AKs have no sporting purpose, you tell em that you know a guy who took down a 400 pound black bear with one while hunting.

Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with that decision.

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I believe that the .308 Winchester in the 7.62 NATO (7.62X51MM) is not workable for the following reasons:

A) 7.62 NATO Mil-Brass is thicker than .308 Winchester to support Heavy Machine Gun Use, which results in less grains of powder in the case (Lower Pressure). The .308 Winchester is listed as supporting a higher PSI as well, although commercial manufacturers probably do not load to the maximum.

B) 7.62 NATO Chambering and Head-Space Specs are different, which can cause .308 Winchester Cases to rupture as "form-fire" occurs.

That second link above does the subject justice.

Click to expand...

I say you just go and buy a Bushmaster ACR! It will solve your problems. You can switch out the receiver in a matter of SECONDS to shoot either 5.56 or 7.62 or 6.8mm!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushmaster_ACR

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJhPMIVgF6c

I've been wanting one of these since I heard about it over a year ago.

Click to expand...

Not a problem. I really do think they are both better rifles. I see you liked the idea of being able to convert to .22LR which has advatages. If you talk to some old timers they used to like to hunt deer with a .22 when it was still leagal since it doesn't ruin the meat. its pretty much a head shoot only to be really viable. So in that case if you still decided to go AR style take the M4.

And as far as the chambering disscussion goes the easiest way to fix it is make shure the barrel is stamped. 5.56 Nato/ .223 or 7.62Nato/.308 problem solved right.

Click to expand...