angelofdeath

im a defender of AR's for what they are for. you seem to be a defender of the AK for any purpose that requires a small arm. sure a 308 rifle is heavier. they are also more powerful and better quality. i wouldnt want to ruck an AK in a situation that doesnt dictate its use just for the hell of it. if i dont want to carry a 308 weapon, i'll carry an AR. if you cant include 308 battle rifles in the debate (which i think you said before the m14 was damn near perfect) because of caliber differences then the debate between a .223 AR and a 762 soviet AK also doesnt jive. why should we be forced to choose between john mccain and obama (same candidates basically) when a ron paul is the best choice? i dont see why one keeps saying one platform is 'better' than the other. they are what they are. if i was going to be in insanely harsh weather, i'd want an AK and i'd sacrifice accuracy. this is highly unlikely for me in the US where i live. so i dont really have a need for a really reliable inaccurate heavy weapon. i can use a lighter, much more accurate, more versatile weapon system to suit my needs. i also own a few different pairs of 'tennis' shoes. i squat and dead lift in chuck taylors. i run sprints and jump rope in running shoes. i dont say 'one is better than the other.' i have different pairs of boots. i dont work on cars in asolo hiking boots, i wear work boots. and i dont hike in work boots, i wear asolo's. i dont say one is 'better' than the other, they are different shoes for different purposes, yet both are boots / tennis shoes. just like the AR and the AK are both 'assault' weapons one of the main reasons why the US military went with a smaller weapon system with lighter powered rounds was to save weight and carry more ammo with less power than to have less ammo with more power. bad choice? depends what you are doing. my only argument is that if i was trying to find the most versatile set up that i can cover nearly all bases, i'd go with a 308 battle rifle of some sort. either an sr-25 type weapon, a m14 variant, or a fal of some sort.

in the end... if you learn to run either system you can make hits and you can use them in a variety of conditions. the AK is limited to short distances. the AR can go long but the round lacks power. the reliability debate is relatively insignificant in non sandbox non ass deep in mud conditions, ie. conditions the average american shooter will be using them in. in the end i wouldnt want to stand in front of either.

i still do not know why you are you taking me as an AR 15 die hard in all situations. i have continually brought actual battle rifles into the equation and you still insist on talking about ar vs ak only. why choose between a pea shooter and a piece of shit when you can choose between a pea shooter piece of shit and a great weapons system? it still seems to me you actually think that a 300 dollar 6 min gun is the superior of all firearms. ruling out the m14 variants, fals, etc. for what reason i do not know. i dont really know why there is such insisting on an AR vs AK debate alone. the calibers are different. 5.56 is a pea shooter. 762 x 39 is a pea shooter that is grossly inaccurate. 308 rules all these insignificant. when i said this: "he question for the average american is why on earth, (except for price issues) would an american choose to own a heavy, grossly inaccurate stamped steel semi auto carbine when they could choose from a myriad of other weapons, in much better calibers with much better workmanship with many more accessories and with the ability to adapt for a variety of uses. " you seemed to think i was talking about an AR15. i dont know how much more blatant i can be... battle rifles. battle rifles. battle rifles. win the day which is why the AR AK debate is largely insignificant. they are what they are. AK's go bang and cant hit anything. AR's are highly accurate and will go bang if you maintain them, the round sucks as far as knock down power is concerned. but you seem to disagree with this analysis for some reason.

RIA stuff is pretty junky from what i understand. if you want a 1911 platform get a colt, kimber, or something along those lines. if you need more capacity than 7+1, go glock, hk or something similar. compact 1911's are pretty squirrelly in my opinion. if you want something for carry that is smaller than a full size weapon, maybe consider a glock 23 if i were to do it over again i'd probably go with a glock, sig or something along those lines in .45 as opposed to. dont think i would pay 700+ for a 1911 again. but handguns are what they are... something used to fight your way to a rifle. you get stuck in a gun fight with a handgun, you go to gun fight with a rifle.

it seems the debate is now narrowed from its original context of a casual talk amongst civilians to now being ground soldiers fighting in ass deep mud or in sand storms. its seems rather disingenuous to now go from saying the AK is the end all be all of weapons systems and that ammo doesnt change accuracy, to now limiting it to a discussion of AR vs AK in extreme conditions. you also leave out that a simple 10 minutes of attention to an AR platform can cure any malfunction problems. so the basic argument seems to be if you dont want to take 10 min to clean a weapon in ass deep mud or in hot sandy windy conditions, and you dont want to hit a man sized target except within 25 yards, you get an AK. if you dont mind spending 10 minutes a day in bad conditions to care for a weapon, and you want to make hits easily out to 300m on man sized targets, you get an AR platform. i dont see how either side can disagree with the final statement in the paragraph above. this also ignores the myriad of high quality accessories available to the AR shooter, the ease of customization to fit any need you might have, and high quality surplus ammo. it is insanity or a simple lie to think that russian surplus ammo from 1979 or steel cased wolf ammo (ever seen the crap flying in the air as you shoot?)is as accurate and reliable as lake city M855/ss109 or 193. not to mention the system being so inaccurate, one would be silly to feed it something like a nice lapua diet. as some have said.. its like feeding filet mignon to a junk yard dog. i think its rather simplistic to place the success of guerilla movements solely on being armed with an AK platform. if anything, the advantage is not in the system its self but the more powerful caliber. you are also ignoring the fact that these movements are highly successful because of the ideology and resolve of the men fighting. US soldiers fight for the empire to receive a paycheck. they are not defending their homes from invaders. they are not protecting their own liberty from oppression (if they were, they'd of turned and marched on DC a LONG time ago) they are not fighting in familiar territory on their own terms. they are not fighting a guerilla war on their own terms in mountainous terrain against a common enemy. you also ignore the fact that guerilla movements are not bound by the same laws and rules that regular armies are. you also ignore the use of explosives. its not simply about ak's.... some of these guerilla bands have driven out imperial armies with flintlock rifles vs centerfire weapons. the question for the average american is why on earth, (except for price issues) would an american choose to own a heavy, grossly inaccurate stamped steel semi auto carbine when they could choose from a myriad of other weapons, in much better calibers with much better workmanship with many more accessories and with the ability to adapt for a variety of uses. i see virtually no reason for the average american to own an AK weapon in 7.62 x 39, unless cost is an issue or they want to become familiar with the platform for whatever reason. its a good idea to know how to run one for sure, you'll eventually encounter one whether out plinking on your friends back 40 or maybe even from some UN forces in america to 'keep the peace.' lets be serious... anything less than a 308 is not a real rifle. it cannot reliably instantly incapacitate beyond 200 m or perforate battle field cover. imagine if the taliban were riflemen armed with actual rifles. they would of pushed the US out of a'stan a long time ago, instead of spraying and praying with inaccurate AK's. lets not forget that the AK was designed for peasant armies and are suitable for guerilla work due to being readily available, cheap, unlimited ammo on the cheap, and nearly 100% reliable with no maintenance, etc. there are something in the neighborhood of 50-100 million AK weapons in existence. then obviously the rest of the world are a bunch of idiots. if i had access to 308 battle rifles of some sort in a'stan and i was trying to drive out an invading army, i'd have all my guys armed with these weapons, with pic rails, acogs and night vision equipment. seems silly to think that a 'rich' and prosperous people like the peasants of a'stan that can easily afford top quality kit, *sarcasm* would NOT be doing so

indeed. i'll be adding an AK to the arsenal at some point im sure. but i decided a few years back when i toyed with the idea of getting an AK, to keep my calibers consolidated and bought more ammo for my other weapons i already had instead of buying another weapon system. then i would of had to buy 20 mags, and 5K rounds and related accessories for the AK platform. that 300 dollar AK would of been over 1000 by the time i got it outfitted properly with ammo, accessories, mags, etc.

seems to me you made a blanket statement that ammo that : (allow me to quote) "first the ammunition does not make a weapon inaccurate." i guess you are some what right in the sense that a weapon only capable of making pie plate groups, that good ammo is only going to bring hte group together .5 in closer or something like that. but the blanket statement you just made is laughable on its face. and what do you want me to do, post hundreds of thousands of pictures of US service men, SOF or whatever using AR's? i mean c'mon man... just at least admit what you are saying is not COMMON. and a picture with an AK doesnt prove what they were actually doing with them... like i said before, weapons familiarization and training iraqi's doesnt count. i mean, one could post pictures of guys in sandy places wearing dcu's holding a m107 and does that make them a sniper? or prove its their favorite one and only weapon system of choice? i have no qualms in saying that 5.56 is not the best round. im not even really an AR fan in the sense that i think there are better systems than the AR. im a 308 fan. i like battle rifles. which is why i think its silly for people to say that the AK is the best all around assault or battle rifle. the FAL or m14 / variants are hands down much better all around weapons. im not a fan of saying there is one rifle that can do everything, but a scoped m14 variant or AR platform in 308 comes pretty close. all issues are addressed. most m1a platforms are 1 moa guns. they are reliable. they have much more power than an AK. the only disadvantage might be heavier ammo load outs. the AK is a well respected weapon, i admit that. as i've always said...'it always goes bang.' but it is silly to think that it is accurate and it is silly to think that the AR isnt as reliable and is much more accurate than an AK platform in non sandbox or non ass deep in jungle mud conditions. the main reason it is in common usage with guerilla movements is because its cheap and readily available, ammo is readily available and it goes bang with no maintenance. imagine if these guerilla movements had battle rifles instead of ak's? how much better armed would they then be? a nation of riflemen have a distinct advantage over a group of people with 5.56 or 762 x 39 weapons. so in the end, i dont really know what the argument is about. you seem to admit ak's arent accurate...what is the average weapon? 6 min from a bench? and i've said they go bang every time. its just simply a matter of a choice between hitting your target or if you are in adverse conditions, having your weapon go bang every time. and none of the adverse conditions arguments apply to any normal shooter in the US. so you are basically left between choosing an accurate weapon and an inaccurate weapon. if you are doing something other than engaging targets, and you need knock down power, you'd simply grab a .308 and be done with it. other than that its all a ford vs chevy, honda vs toyota, republican vs democrat debate.

SAY WHAT? so there is no need for long range marksmen to shoot match ammo? to shoot hand loads? all those guys using cor-bon and FGMM are just idiots? the .50 barret does NOT suffer from worse accuracy due to lack of match ammo being available to regular army? 2 min gun 2 min ammo = 4 moa gun. i mean, seriously.... yeah, i thought this was a given. that all parties engaged in the debate understand this. i merely pointed out that surplus or wolf ammo in 7.62x39 is some of the shittiest and inaccurate ammo i've encountered. ... a couple pictures proves massive common usage? its always been the AK lovers tactic to cite a rare practice, that a small minority of guys do and use this as the definitive proof on this subject. the most common usage, to my understanding of US soldiers using Ak platforms is in training iraqi's, a-stani's, or weapons familiarization. or the more covert missions of SF types. it is also to my knowledge ILLEGAL for your regular army/marine to use said platform, which is why i specifically mentioned SOF. it certainly seems only logical is the AK is the grand daddy of them all, every single seal, ranger, 1st SFOD-D, SAD, dude would of long ago ditched the AR platform and went with iron sights on an AK tapco tends to sell one thing...junk. one can also put headers and a big exhaust on a honda civic, but in the end you still have a honda civic. but you dont see any LOLZ in people having this debate and then using said weapons at a shooting range or just having them sitting in a corner? i mean there are actually people who will not buy an AR15 because of some issues people have by lack of maintenance in the sandbox.

im not denying ak's arent bullet proof and reliable. what im saying is the entire AR vs AK debate and their advantages and disadvantages in harsh conditions does not apply to us casual shooters at a shooting range or out in the woods. if an AK is all one can afford, that is fine, but lets just not pretend that you can make solid torso size hits at 400 yards every time. why cant the AK fans admit that the ammo and the weapon sucks as far as precision work is concerned? they are two different guns for two different purposes. the mistake everyone makes is they try to make a case for 1 gun to fit all purposes. its like trying to say that chuck taylors serve the same purpose as hiking boots or mountaineering boots. if you want a gun to go bang every time in the worse conditions and you are shooting at stuff up close, you use an AK. if you want to actually hit your target at a variety of ranges and you want a reliable weapon, be able to use a multitude of accessories with ease, including but not limited to lights, lasers, night vision devices, NV laser pointers, illuminators, various dot and holographic sights, acogs, higher power scopes, etc you get an AR. if you want to engage targets with real accuracy at long, known or unknown distances, you get a precision platform such as a bolt gun or an AR platform in .308. if AK based weapons platforms are the best of the best in all situations, bar none, why arent US SOF dudes, who can basically use and wear whatever the fuck they want using them? where are the precision AK platforms that are being used to make first round kill shots at a grand? what sort of groups is everyone getting out of their AK's with iron sights @ 1, 2, 3, 4 or 500m? how many minutes are surplus AK rounds capable of? can you even get under 4 or 5 minutes @ 100 yards from a bench? do you know how big of a group this is in inches @ 400 yards?

^^^ amen to that. to think that the AK is as versatile or accurate as the AR platform is just silly

F yeah

dips, weighted dips, rolling extensions, pushdowns w/ super sets, close grip bench, tricep death, tricep ladders also, defranco's points on oly lifts are well taken. you dont need them to get explosive for sure and his main point holds lots of weight... takes to much time to teach people to do them right.

im not a huge power clean fan, but i dont deny that you can get some benefits out of them. speed/explosiveness is critical to strength. research the dynamic method that is part of the west side template.

ak's go bang, but arent accurate. anything past 100 yards isnt worth shooting at, you'll miss. ak's are fine for what they are, but they are not the end all be all. battle rifles are all around much better, much more accurate much more powerful. anything in the m14, FAL, etc are much more all purpose rifles. the funny thing is people take the AR vs AK debate and their pluses and minuses in extreme conditions and apply it to shooting at a range. who in the hell is going to actually put an AR through its paces in extreme conditions to actually make you want an AK? if you need more power, bring a .308

i said 7.62x39 is more powerful than 5.56, but a 308 platform AR would cover all bases.

grove pretty much nailed it. if you dont need something accurate but you just need it to go bang without maintenance and in nearly any conditions, you want an AK. if you to actually hit your target, and you want something that is highly reliable but that it requires maintenance, you want an AR platform. the caliber debate is pointless. if you dont think a 5.56 is powerful enough, then get a .308 platform. the 762x39 is more powerful than 5.56, but .308 smashes them both.

yeah im sure he is talking about the fats that come from meats as well as 'good oils/fats.' the atkins diet has some good points, but the approach isnt 100%. but the overall point that cholesterol does not = heart disease is probably the most solid. i mean the 'experts' cant even prove cholesterol in eggs raises your bad cholesterol level in your body. check out the weston a price foundation on this topic. they are one of the biggest 'alternative' health outlets around. they are probably the biggest promoters of raw milk for instance, but they also preach a diet high in proteins and fat is the healthiest as opposed to a diet high in carbohydrates with limited proteins and fats, such as the food pyramid teaches. also peep the movie 'fat head.' its mainly a movie trashing 'supersize, me' (which they do a great job of by the way) but they also have weston a price people as well as others that are big supporters of the 'quit eating all those carbs' and 'screw the government food pyramid' line of thought.

deli meats... i mean you could do worse. i'd say the turkey is probably the best to choose from from an overall health perspective. still the optimal meats are pastured/100% grass finished beef, chicken, pork, lamb, etc. no need to get hung up on govt certified organic... there is little difference in this junk and factory raised chicken, beef, etc. the beef is just fed organic grain. you want grass finished beef if at all possible. those looking to seriously shed fat or lose weight in general need to look into the concepts behind the paleo/primal dieting approach. no need to even follow it 100% either... if im cutting i dont get to caught up on carbs in say milk and veggies. you want to obviously cut all processed grains out, if not all grains completely. think about it... they dont feed cows saturated fat to fatten them up, they feed them grain and silage. limited fruits are fine on a cut. as car as the back pack... i guess there is a potential for problems in anything, but if you are good shape, this will hardly be a problem. im going to start rucking a lot more myself.

i thought a foam roller was gay for years, then i bought one. then i thought it was gay for about 2 more weeks because i didnt know how to use it. now its great. i havent had an injury or even an ache since i started using it. i'd start off with an actual foam roller and not pvc. you have to work up to that, and you have to do it on a rubber floor (or grass) so it wont slide around, etc.

pissed is sort of right.... a foam roller, proper warm up, etc go a long way. but i still think you get a lot out of a deload. depends on how hard you are actually training really. i've always noticed i tend to be stronger when coming back from deload/'strategic de conditioning'

guns and ammo puts retail pricing in their mags sometimes. dont know the frequency, but i think its all in their in the current issue i'd check any of the auction sites, gun broker, auction arms, guns america, etc. this will give you a look at what the real market is. also dont forget if you are going to purchase from an out of state dealer, you'll need to factor in transfer/ffl fees into the price. often this makes those cheaper used or cheaper priced new guns online not at cheap. glockmeister.com probably has the best glock prices, but again, if you have to ship to your ffl, might be a different story. there is also a place that sells used glocks for a song, but cant remember the name. you can probably find it in a quick google search

in response to the original question: i usually do a de load week every 4-5 weeks. either same routine im doing and only go up to 60% of the weight or if im traveling somewhere over a long weekend or something, and dont work out except maybe some pushups/light conditioning stuff, this will be my deload week. you definitely should de load or you will either hurt yourself or burn your self out if you are going heavy

right on mil/mil is the way to roll

specs on glass?? cant make it out is that an ltr or p/pss?

nice purchase. yup, whenever you get a new caliber, you need to spend as much as the firearm its self on ammo. and as much as or more than the cost of the firearm on good glass (if appropriate)