Is it better to have a cheap riffle rather than none?

[Marco]

imported post

Armond Reese wrote:

ODA 226 wrote:

Armond Reese wrote:

AKs are awesome, ARs are picky pieces of @#$%

Obviouslyyou've never carried an AK in combat.

Tell me more about your experience carrying around a $700 AR-15 in combat.

:quirky

That won't hope anytime soon I hope, as U.S soliders aren't issued AR-15's.
Not sure what our Gov't pays for M-16's/M-4's but I do believe it is <$700 per unit.

[line]
As for this list by another poster there are many fine rifles missing.

1. Ar-15
2. FN/FAL
3. ak-47
4. sig-556
5. S&W M76
6. Ruger-SR Rifle
7. Rem M700 - .308 / 30.06
8. Mini-14
9. Mauser K98
10. 30.06 Garand


[line]
Almost any .22LR rifle will do, if the shooter is up to the task.
Bolt action rifles
Lever action rifles
M-14/M1-A
BM-59
AK varaints to include the 74
FN P/PS 90
HK 91/94 -clones
Sig 550
And my personal fav BAR.

[line]
As for Citizens :question:.
It would depend on what Continent you are on and if you are trying to hide the fact you are part of a U.S. fight force while there.

 

[WheelGun]

imported post

Interceptor_Knight wrote:

WheelGun wrote:

Hawkflyer wrote:

is a variant of the US battle rifle.

Not to be nit-picky, but the 'US Rifle M-16' is a variant of the AR-15.

Not to be nit-picky, but the original ArmaLite (Designed by Eugene Stoner) AR-15 was select fire full auto as was the original AR10.Colt bought the rights from Fairchild ArmaLite in 1959. The present day Armaliteis not related to the original Fairchild ArmaLite.Some early M16s were marked AR15 also as the M16 is the US Military designation for the AR15 rifle. All current production AR15s are semiautomatic variants of the original AR15 as Colt used the AR15 designation for both its full auto rifles sold to the militaries of various countries including the USA and for its semiautomatic versions sold to Joe Sixpack......:dude:

While the AR-15 was designed for the military in mind, it's mission was to be limited to guarding airbases and possibly aboard aircraft,keeping in mind the 'large pistol' concept of weapons design. It was not intended to be used as a general purpose battle rifle. The design was purposely meant to be sleek, with few lumps and bumps, to facilitate bailing out of a downed airplane.

Military changes to the design included removing the charging handle from being tucked away under the carry handle and putting it below/rear of the rear sight, and adding the controversial forward assist, and, throughout the years, adding beefed up ridges of material to add strength and functionality. Example of this is the ridge surrounding the magazine ejection button, which was added in the '80s.

The militarized version of the original AR-15 was designated as the M-16.

Later versions included the M-16A1, the A2 (the most popular model w/ fixed carry handle and rounded front grip area) and the A4 (removable carry handle).

 

[GLOCK21GB]

imported post

Agent19 wrote:

Armond Reese wrote:

ODA 226 wrote:

Armond Reese wrote:

AKs are awesome, ARs are picky pieces of @#$%

Obviouslyyou've never carried an AK in combat.

Tell me more about your experience carrying around a $700 AR-15 in combat.

:quirky

That won't hope anytime soon I hope, as U.S soliders aren't issued AR-15's.
Not sure what our Gov't pays for M-16's/M-4's but I do believe it is <$700 per unit.

[line]
As for this list by another poster there are many fine rifles missing.

1. Ar-15
2. FN/FAL
3. ak-47
4. sig-556
5. S&W M76
6. Ruger-SR Rifle
7. Rem M700 - .308 / 30.06
8. Mini-14
9. Mauser K98
10. 30.06 Garand


[line]
Almost any .22LR rifle will do, if the shooter is up to the task.
Bolt action rifles
Lever action rifles
M-14/M1-A
BM-59
AK varaints to include the 74
FN P/PS 90
HK 91/94 -clones
Sig 550
And my personal fav BAR.

[line]
As for Citizens :question:.
It would depend on what Continent you are on and if you are trying to hide the fact you are part of a U.S. fight force while there.

We both missed alot of good guns.. I was picking out the most common battle type rifles...

 

[ODA 226]

imported post

Armond Reese wrote:

ODA 226 wrote:

Armond Reese wrote:

AKs are awesome, ARs are picky pieces of @#$%

Obviouslyyou've never carried an AK in combat.

Tell me more about your experience carrying around a $700 AR-15 in combat.

:quirky

Since you're new here, I'll give you the "Reader's Digest" version. I've used both weapons systems in both the Balkans and Iraq and definitely prefer the M-16 and its' variants over the AK.

The M-16 Weapons System, IMHO has:

Lighter weight (portability), can carry twice the basic load at the same weight (portability and firepower), more accurate, less recoil, modular (able to modify the weapon to suit any particular mission), and better ergonomics.

The AK has its' time and place but not with me. I hate it, but others love it. My opinion simply differs.

 

[Armond Reese]

imported post

ODA 226 wrote:

Armond Reese wrote:

ODA 226 wrote:

Armond Reese wrote:

AKs are awesome, ARs are picky pieces of @#$%

Obviouslyyou've never carried an AK in combat.

Tell me more about your experience carrying around a $700 AR-15 in combat.

:quirky

Since you're new here, I'll give you the "Reader's Digest" version. I've used both weapons systems in both the Balkans and Iraq and definitely prefer the M-16 and its' variants over the AK.

The M-16 Weapons System, IMHO has:

Lighter weight (portability), can carry twice the basic load at the same weight (portability and firepower), more accurate, less recoil, modular (able to modify the weapon to suit any particular mission), and better ergonomics.

The AK has its' time and place but not with me. I hate it, but others love it. My opinion simply differs.

You didn't even read my question did you?

 

[Interceptor_Knight]

imported post

WheelGun wrote:

While the AR-15 was designed for the military in mind, it's mission was to be limited to guarding airbases and possibly aboard aircraft,keeping in mind the 'large pistol' concept of weapons design. It was not intended to be used as a general purpose battle rifle. The design was purposely meant to be sleek, with few lumps and bumps, to facilitate bailing out of a downed airplane.

Military changes to the design included removing the charging handle from being tucked away under the carry handle and putting it below/rear of the rear sight, and adding the controversial forward assist, and, throughout the years, adding beefed up ridges of material to add strength and functionality. Example of this is the ridge surrounding the magazine ejection button, which was added in the '80s.

The militarized version of the original AR-15 was designated as the M-16.

Although it may have been initially used by the Air Force for security purposes, this has nothing to do with its design. Jim Sullivan scaled Stoner's AR10 down to chamber the .223. LeMay got wind of it and urged the AF to get them.

By the time MacNamara was looking at the AR15, Colt had already purchased the rights to produce it and had made changes to it. Nothing was "militarized" as the AR10 and subsequently the AR15 were both designed to be main battle rifles by the world's military forces. When the Air Force first fielded the AR15 it was not yet designated the M16.

Production of the AR-15 rifle was licensed to to Colt Manufacturing Company in 1959. Early Colt AR-15s, their magazines, and their operators manuals were marked with ArmaLite's name. Colt's retained the AR-15 designation on commercial rifles. To this day Colt's has a model designation with the letters AR, which stands for "ArmaLite".
The AR-15 was selectable for full and automatic fire. The AR-15 was to have had the same effective range as the M14 rifle, but it was most effective at a range of 215 yards (200m) or less. The M16 used a 5.56mm (.223 cal.) cartridge in 20- or 30-round magazines. To compensate for the reduced size of the 5.56 mm bullet, the AR-15 designers increased the velocity of the bullet so that it would have an adequate range and the flat trajectory needed for accurate aiming. The M16 bullet had a muzzle velocity (velocity on leaving the gun) of 980 meters per second as compared to 870 meters per second for the M14 rifle and 720 metres per second for the Soviet AK-47 7.62 mm rifle, while at a range of 100 meters the velocities of the three bullets were 830, 800, and 630 meters per second respectively.
The U.S. Air Force completed tests of the AR-15 in January 1961. The Air Force procured 8,500 rifles in 1961 and standardized the AR-15 in 1963. The weapon was first deployed to the Air Force's Air Police. The original AR-15 was designated the M16 in 1962.
The new rifle had the advantage from a military point of view of weighing one- fourth less than the M14, and the ammunition also was lighter, reducing the recoil against the soldier's shoulder and enabling a soldier to carry more rounds. As interest in the problems of counter-insurgency grew under the Kennedy administration in the early 1960s, the US military quietly bought several thousand AR-15s and sent them to Vietnam for testing in combat conditions.
In the Vietnam era, DARPA (then ARPA) gained acceptance for the AR-15 by sponsoring its demonstration in combat. Colt brought the weapon to DARPA in 1962. Through Project AGILE, DARPA purchased 1,000 AR-15s and issued them to combat troops in Southeast Asia for field trials, to prove that the high-velocity 5.56 mm round had satisfactory performance. The subsequent DARPA report, documenting the lethality of the AR-15, was instrumental in motivating the Secretary of Defense to reconsider the Army's decision and eventually adopt a modified AR-15 as the US military individual weapon of choice. Although opposed by the Ordnance Corps, theColt AR-15 was adopted by the Secretary of Defense as the 5.56mm M16 rifle.

 

[ODA 226]

imported post

Armond Reese wrote:

ODA 226 wrote:

Armond Reese wrote:

ODA 226 wrote:

Armond Reese wrote:

AKs are awesome, ARs are picky pieces of @#$%

Obviouslyyou've never carried an AK in combat.

Tell me more about your experience carrying around a $700 AR-15 in combat.

:quirky

Since you're new here, I'll give you the "Reader's Digest" version. I've used both weapons systems in both the Balkans and Iraq and definitely prefer the M-16 and its' variants over the AK.

The M-16 Weapons System, IMHO has:

Lighter weight (portability), can carry twice the basic load at the same weight (portability and firepower), more accurate, less recoil, modular (able to modify the weapon to suit any particular mission), and better ergonomics.

The AK has its' time and place but not with me. I hate it, but others love it. My opinion simply differs.

You didn't even read my question did you?

Yes I did. I thought the AR-15 ref was a mis-type. What point are you trying to make here?

 

[Armond Reese]

imported post

Civilian rifle VS civilian rifle != military rifle VS military rifle, even if they look the same.

 

[ODA 226]

imported post

Armond Reese wrote:

Civilian rifle VS civilian rifle != military rifle VS military rifle, even if they look the same.

Gotcha!

 

[McX]

imported post

 

[ABNinfantryman]

imported post

Interceptor_Knight wrote:

ABNinfantryman wrote:

Not to say you can't get a Krebs whom retools the barrel or makes his own, but if you're looking to get a Russian AK, or the POS Chinese and Romanian AKs, don't expect much for accuracy. Like ODA, my experience overseas has not been pleasant with AKs. They work for the locals because they use them like they're supposed to, a lot of rounds from a lot of different AKs at the same time, but for precision shots, bleh.

Send all of the Chinese AKs my way...... Some Chinese variants areof the most accurate mass produced variants. you will find. The receivers are often made of thicker material than the cheaper WASRs and MISRs, etc.. I have yet to see an AK that will not shoot 3-MOA. Some are better. 4MOA is good enough to hit a man sized target out to 400M and a head shot at 200M+..

3-MOA is not acceptable to me and I don't believe in "good enough." You can get the same reliability of an AK with a bigger more accurate round and riflingwith an FN-FAL. I would take an FNAR over an AK or even a Springfield M1A SOCOMII before an AK. So if I find any Chinese AKs I'll let you know.

 

[thx997303]

imported post

Not acceptable? Most people can't shoot that well under pressure. Unless you are doing Designated Marksmen duty, it's plenty. And a DM aint gonna have an AK anyway.

 

[ABNinfantryman]

imported post

thx997303 wrote:

Not acceptable? Most people can't shoot that well under pressure. Unless you are doing Designated Marksmen duty, it's plenty. And a DM aint gonna have an AK anyway.

I was a DM when I was lower enlisted, and your last statement is why I don't like AKs. I'd rather havean M14 with a Mark IV Leupold MR or 7.62 ACOG. And your first statement is why the weapon should be as accurate as possible so when you flinch your shot's only 3 MOA off because of your trigger pull and not 9 MOA off because of trigger pull and the rifling of the barrel. From a defensive stand point, I don't want a threat getting within 800M of my location, which is why most of my weapons can reach out and touch someone. And I'm dropping a few grand on a DSR1 from Germany once my buddy gets the importing paperwork situated. Sub-MOA at 1000M, 338 Lapua, bullpup bolt action so it's nice and short too. Oh yeah. Before you get anywhere near the capability of your AK or AR you're dead.

Like I said, if you're going for putting as much lead down range as possible in a short amount of time, the AK is perfect for that job, if you want accuracy you need to find something else.

 

[Hawkflyer]

imported post

All of you have lost sight of the original premise of the OP. HE DOES NOT HAVE THE MONEY TO BUY A HIGH END RIFLE!.

So while I do not wish to put words in his mouth, he wants to know if having a low cost rifle is better than having NO rifle at all. In my view, if all he can afford is an AK, that AK is a whole lot better then nothing. But frankly, if I had no firearms at all, the first thing I would buy is a shotgun.

Rgerads

 

[ABNinfantryman]

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

All of you have lost sight of the original premise of the OP. HE DOES NOT HAVE THE MONEY TO BUY A HIGH END RIFLE!.

So while I do not wish to put words in his mouth, he wants to know if having a low cost rifle is better than having NO rifle at all. In my view, if all he can afford is an AK, that AK is a whole lot better then nothing. But frankly, if I had no firearms at all, the first thing I would buy is a shotgun.

Rgerads

And many have said YES if he doesn't have a gun and it's the cheapest thing he can get then get it.No one lost sight of it, there was a consensus, and then it went back into an AK vs AR discussion.

 

[bigdaddy1]

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

All of you have lost sight of the original premise of the OP. HE DOES NOT HAVE THE MONEY TO BUY A HIGH END RIFLE!.

So while I do not wish to put words in his mouth, he wants to know if having a low cost rifle is better than having NO rifle at all. In my view, if all he can afford is an AK, that AK is a whole lot better then nothing. But frankly, if I had no firearms at all, the first thing I would buy is a shotgun.

Rgerads

Dunhams has a Mossburg 500 tactical on sale for $280.00 :lol:

 

[Armond Reese]

imported post

ABNinfantryman wrote:

thx997303 wrote:

Not acceptable? Most people can't shoot that well under pressure. Unless you are doing Designated Marksmen duty, it's plenty. And a DM aint gonna have an AK anyway.

I was a DM when I was lower enlisted, and your last statement is why I don't like AKs. I'd rather havean M14 with a Mark IV Leupold MR or 7.62 ACOG. And your first statement is why the weapon should be as accurate as possible so when you flinch your shot's only 3 MOA off because of your trigger pull and not 9 MOA off because of trigger pull and the rifling of the barrel. From a defensive stand point, I don't want a threat getting within 800M of my location, which is why most of my weapons can reach out and touch someone. And I'm dropping a few grand on a DSR1 from Germany once my buddy gets the importing paperwork situated. Sub-MOA at 1000M, 338 Lapua, bullpup bolt action so it's nice and short too. Oh yeah. Before you get anywhere near the capability of your AK or AR you're dead.

Like I said, if you're going for putting as much lead down range as possible in a short amount of time, the AK is perfect for that job, if you want accuracy you need to find something else.

Okay Rambo.

 

[Interceptor_Knight]

imported post

ABNinfantryman wrote:

3-MOA is not acceptable to me and I don't believe in "good enough." You can get the same reliability of an AK with a bigger more accurate round and riflingwith an FN-FAL. I would take an FNAR over an AK or even a Springfield M1A SOCOMII before an AK. So if I find any Chinese AKs I'll let you know.

If you were really a DM, a 3MOArifle would have gotten the job done. For practical purposes, that is only 1.5MOA in any particular direction away from point of aim. If you have 3MOA+ of flinch, you can't do your job no matter how accurate your rifle is. That is the equivalent of 6MOA. of (in)accuracy...

Maybe you have never heard of Carlos Hathcock.... He started out his professional career of sniping with a 2MOA accurate rifle.....:dude:

 

[Interceptor_Knight]

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

All of you have lost sight of the original premise of the OP. HE DOES NOT HAVE THE MONEY TO BUY A HIGH END RIFLE!.

So while I do not wish to put words in his mouth, he wants to know if having a low cost rifle is better than having NO rifle at all. In my view, if all he can afford is an AK, that AK is a whole lot better then nothing.

I will repeat my original answer. If all you have is money to buy a AK, buy a SKS first. It will leave you money for ammo and optics and both the rifle and you will be more accurate.....

 

[Gunslinger]

imported post

bigdaddy1 wrote:

I read very often about how poor a riffle an AK47 is, and that the AR is such a superior weapon. However you can buy 2 AK's for the price of 1 AR. I would LOVE to have an AR (style) riffle, but I just cant get past the price tag. I feel its better to have a reliable weapon you can afford, rather than wishing for one you cant.

AKs are rock solid and deadly at ranges out to 100m. Beyond that, I'll take a .44 magnum. But how often would you go beyone that for accuracy? You can get $600 ARs, however. Stag makes one that just needs a sighting system; Doublestar is close to that price, also. Check out Buds.

I've shot the AK and M-16 in full auto and vastly prefer the M-16. It is a real rifle round whereas the AK is kind of a hybrid round--true definition of "assault rifle." Spray and pray for illiterate 3rd world export has made the Kalashnikov the most produced rifle in the world. In the hands of guys who know what they're doing, it is deadly. The M-16, or its civvie variant, is deadly in the hands of people who don't know what they're doing. I guess I would call that the biggest difference.