gun thread

[JerseyViking]

[beeone360]

I'm goin with ARs all day!

If you think 5.56 is underpowered, get a 6.8 SPC, 300 BLK, .458 SOCOM, or .50 Beowolf upper and swap that shit out in 10 seconds.

If you want to go bigger, get an AR10 variant. KAC EMC comes to mind for an awesome battle rifle/carbine. Or LaRue OBR or a custom AR10 from GAP or other quality gunsmith for almost the same long range precision as a bolt action.

If you think the direct impingement system is too dirty, get a piston upper. Or just run the DI one with more lube..

The AK platform is nowhere near as versatile as the AR for calibers, or mounting optics for that matter.

[angelofdeath]

^^^ amen to that.

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

[Spring Break '92]

Those things are true, but the simplicity and reliability of the AK is not without merit.

[Spring Break '92]

so i have been shooting a Bersa .380 for a bit and wanted to move up and try something with more of a pop.

 

i shot one of these, Baretta 92FS

 

fucked her face up

 

it was heavier but easier to shoot for me then the .380

 

any recommendations on 9mm. looking to purchase in the near future.

Damn girl, I didn't know you were into guns. I would reccomend a Glock to anyone, and for your smaller female hands, I would reccomend a Glock 19. Maybe even a Glock 26, the smallest 9mm they make. But dont be afraid to check out some other makes to see what you like best. Its all in what you shoot well.

[POINTFIVE]

Anyone own anything from Rock Island Armory?

 

i'm looking at an RIA Compact CS (430$ nbd). So far the reviews i'm seeing online are A+ no complaints really other than occasionally shooting to the left (out of the box) which is easily fixed apparently.

 

Only thing I dont like about it is 7+1.

 

Care to chime in?

[angelofdeath]

Those things are true, but the simplicity and reliability of the AK is not without merit.

 

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?

[RIPS]

^^very well explained

 

[RIPS]

[RUNINE]

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?

 

several things wrong with this post. first the ammunition does not make a weapon inaccurate. you could put a 5.56 in a AK platform and it would be innaccurate. the AK's inaccuracy is caused by the looseness of its construction witch allows it to be so reliable under extreme conditions. the gas system works 50% more than it has to to allow play room for dirt and fouling.

 

second, US SOF do use ak's. very often accually. even US marines ditch their ARs for AKs. Military contractors (usually ex SOF, SEALs, DF,etc) use AKs and im one of them.

these are not me

Not exactly an AK but the AMD-65 is the same thing with different looks

 

Third you can put every attachment that you can put on an AR on an AK. lay down about $20 for a picatinny rail dust cover from tapco and another $15 for a tri-rail attachment for lights, lasers, you get the idea.

 

fourth, the debate on wether the AK or AR is based on a combat assault rifle. for what they were designed for. not for how many rounds you can put through a penny sized hole at 500yds. the combat that ive experienced ive never been more than 100yds from my target and most of the time they left before any of us knew where they were

[angelofdeath]

several things wrong with this post. first the ammunition does not make a weapon inaccurate.

 

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....

 

you could put a 5.56 in a AK platform and it would be innaccurate. the AK's inaccuracy is caused by the looseness of its construction witch allows it to be so reliable under extreme conditions. the gas system works 50% more than it has to to allow play room for dirt and fouling.

 

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.

 

second, US SOF do use ak's. very often accually. even US marines ditch their ARs for AKs. Military contractors (usually ex SOF, SEALs, DF,etc) use AKs and im one of them.

these are not me

 

... 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

 

Third you can put every attachment that you can put on an AR on an AK. lay down about $20 for a picatinny rail dust cover from tapco and another $15 for a tri-rail attachment for lights, lasers, you get the idea.

 

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.

 

fourth, the debate on wether the AK or AR is based on a combat assault rifle. for what they were designed for. not for how many rounds you can put through a penny sized hole at 500yds. the combat that ive experienced ive never been more than 100yds from my target and most of the time they left before any of us knew where they were

 

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.

[RUNINE]

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.

 

we're not talking .50s and scout snipers. we're talking assault rifles and ground soldiers. you seem to forget that often.

 

surplus kalish ammo is just as good as US surplus AR ammo. if you dont beleive me ask my vest and the AAV i was in during my second firefight.

 

pictures do prove usage. do you want me to post a pic of every marine, delta, GB, SEAL, and PMC that ever used an AK? if i had the time i would. the fact is that they use them. legally or not. even in vietnam US soldiers used AKs. they figured that in a firefight they want a weapon that ALWAYS fires high powered rounds innacurately instead of a weapon that MIGHT fire low power rounds accurately.

 

of course not every situation calls for an AK. SF missions that require stealth in a AO that isnt as enviromentally hostile as a sandy, dusty farmland and is more like in an urban situation, where i could clean my weapon every day when im done with it then yes i would take an AR. but the average foot soldier that eats MREs for 2 monthes straight and hasnt had running water since he got in country might not have the time to clean his rifle every day. if hes using an AR and he fails to do so he has a $1000 government issued wiffle bat. with $2000 wirth of attachments.

 

all the 5.56 is is a .22 super-ultra mag with alot of hype. the type of ammunitin to zip throught your target instead of leaving a gaping quarter sized hole. Even the rangers during the blackhawk down incident admitted to using AK's because their nylon-tipped tungsten core 5.56 were taking 15 rounds to put down a somali.

 

think of it like this. in almost every war in all of history the guerillas won. all with the exception of the native americans but they still wooped ass. every guerilla organization i know of except the IRA uses AKs or any form of it.

[angelofdeath]

we're not talking .50s and scout snipers. we're talking assault rifles and ground soldiers. you seem to forget that often.

 

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.

 

pictures do prove usage. do you want me to post a pic of every marine, delta, GB, SEAL, and PMC that ever used an AK? if i had the time i would.

 

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?

 

 

all the 5.56 is is a .22 super-ultra mag with alot of hype. the type of ammunitin to zip throught your target instead of leaving a gaping quarter sized hole. Even the rangers during the blackhawk down incident admitted to using AK's because their nylon-tipped tungsten core 5.56 were taking 15 rounds to put down a somali.

 

think of it like this. in almost every war in all of history the guerillas won. all with the exception of the native americans but they still wooped ass. every guerilla organization i know of except the IRA uses AKs or any form of it.

 

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.

[Spring Break '92]

Both of you guys make good and valid points. I like both, but chose an AK. Honestly I would like to have both an AK and AR.

[angelofdeath]

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.

[beeone360]

^Pretty much where i stand with them as well. Although in a perfect world I would just get a 7.62 Galil. $$$$

[nsmbfan]

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?

 

 

 

 

just watched Green Zone on HBO.

 

it became very apparent that the AK-47 isn't nearly as accurate as ANY of the American made weapons the US army used. we're the best at killin things dammit.

 

could have been the shooter though too. but you'd think in a desert full of guns people would know how to shoot.

 

just my two cents.

[RUNINE]

 

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.

 

again we are talking AK-47 vs. AR-15. no .308s, no 5.45s Again we are talking ground soldiers fighting aroudn the world not shooting from a bench in some grassy knoll shooting range. i do admit that the AK is inaccurate. but innacuracy over FTFs wins any day.

 

as for the nation of riflemen, the guerillas always win. Vietnam, cambodia, modern iraq, modern afghanistan, 1980's afganistan, colombia, mexico, and ecuador are just a few examples of guerillas armed with AKs. the vietnamese and cambodians in the 60's had shitloads of US battelfield pickup ARs but rarely used them. Osama bin laden and his US funded mujahadeen definatly had enough support to aquire ARs to fight the soviets but didnt. same with AQ and the taliban. even the northern alliance and its subdivisionaries picked AKs when they had the chice of US weapons . each and every one of those examples still ship in AKs and their ammunition even when the battlefield pickups run dry.

 

remember this. if you have access as a civilian to something here in america. so does the rest of the world.

[angelofdeath]

again we are talking AK-47 vs. AR-15. no .308s, no 5.45s Again we are talking ground soldiers fighting aroudn the world not shooting from a bench in some grassy knoll shooting range. i do admit that the AK is inaccurate. but innacuracy over FTFs wins any day.

 

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.

 

 

 

as for the nation of riflemen, the guerillas always win. Vietnam, cambodia, modern iraq, modern afghanistan, 1980's afganistan, colombia, mexico, and ecuador are just a few examples of guerillas armed with AKs. the vietnamese and cambodians in the 60's had shitloads of US battelfield pickup ARs but rarely used them. Osama bin laden and his US funded mujahadeen definatly had enough support to aquire ARs to fight the soviets but didnt. same with AQ and the taliban. even the northern alliance and its subdivisionaries picked AKs when they had the chice of US weapons . each and every one of those examples still ship in AKs and their ammunition even when the battlefield pickups run dry.

 

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.

 

remember this. if you have access as a civilian to something here in america. so does the rest of the world.

 

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

[POINTFIVE]

LONG STORY SHORT IT ALL COMES DOWN TO PERSONAL PREFERENCE

 

 

jesus christ ak47 vs ar15 take it to /k/ plz

 

anyone want to chime in on the RIA stuff re: last post

[grove rat]

ak's and ar's have different pluses and minuses... anybody who is OMFGloyal to only ONE gun and anti-everything else is either a fanboi or too poor to afford both

 

i fall in the 'cant afford both' category. since i needed a rifle to hunt pigs and that's about it... i got an ak

[angelofdeath]

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.

[IHATEU]

im not sure if any of you folks watch that Top Shot show but i really enjoyed this season and was really happy with the way things turned out.

i thought george would win from the jump but he went out class act and chris was the coolest on the show anyhow so...

great show. if some of you cats havent seen or herd of it, watch it online. some nice shooting...

[mewzer]

GUNS DONT KILL PEOPLE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BULLETS KILL PEOPLE

[pissdrunkwhat?!]

STUPID...

 

 

I KILL PEOPLE.

[RUNINE]

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.

 

 

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.

 

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

 

you can spend 5 hours cleaning an AR but if you drop it in the sand once while some oraface(dust cover, barrel) is open. your $9 per ounce lubricant/cleaner is going fill with dirt. then you have to spend 10 minutes cleaning it again. but wait. lets say the reason you dropped your ar is because IED 300 yds away scared the living shit out of you and you hit the deck like any smart fighter. now you and your squad are under fire. your rifle is sand coated, youre telling me youre going to spend 10 minutes cleaning this $1000 piece of plastic with lights? at the moment you hear your firing pin click youre going to wish you had packed an AK. now youre team has one man possibly more who are virtually combat inneffective with the exception of a sidearm. it happends every day. i know IEDs kill alot more men than ground forces but 6000 dead US servicemen plus thousands more from past wars prove that the AR is not superior.

 

Why would and american buy a commie steel rifle? One. if you drop it it hurts the ground more.

Two. weight is nothing to a soldier. at least an eastern european. youre plastic .22 is a wiffle bat compared to the ak being 3 louievilles in the event of HTHC

Three. If its used by more nations then the AR and is still around to say so then the AR definately doesnet win with regs in the countries that WE depend on for oil. IE nations richer than us.

 

i guess americans have pussied up since early vietnam. we went from the nearly perfect m14 to a toy that melts

[angelofdeath]

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.

[angelofdeath]

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.

[RIPS]

[RIPS]