The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

From the SurvivalBlog:

Thursday August 20 2009
Letter Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle

Dear SurvivalBlog Readers:
The immediate impression of most shooters, upon hearing "Kalashnikov", will involve the words cheap and reliable. Non-shooters will often maintain a huge negative connotation to the AK-47 and its variants, though they may not recognize the maker's name. I will not delve into the rifle's history today, but instead intend to highlight a weapons platform and illustrate the finer points in favor and against its use.

The AK-47 is a legendary weapon, known for its ability to fire under incredibly challenging circumstances. While some rifles may require regular and frequent care to keep them running properly, it is a commonly-held notion that the AK platform requires only ammunition and a clear chamber to function reliably. Of course, the rifle will perform better and will be far more durable if properly cared for, but if one should find himself engaged in a protracted struggle and without the room, tools, or time to safely maintain the weapon, the owner of an AK variant is going to find himself very satisfied with its performance even if several days, weeks, or months pass without cleaning or lubricant application. This is the core of my survival philosophy: �My weapon must fire every time, without fail, without an excess of labor on my part.� While I will regularly strip, clean, and lubricate my rifle, it should not be picky or prone to jam should I fail to do so for a longer period of time. The Kalashnikov family of weapons has absolutely proven itself in this arena for several decades.

Where else can one find a massive stock of .30-caliber rifles in a military configuration for under $600 each? Certainly not in an AR variant platform. While I heartily endorse the rough and ready nature of the ROMAK WASR-10, the only alternative for a shooter who wants a full-power cartridge in a semi-automatic, magazine-fed rifle is the Saiga line, in which the discriminating shooter can find .223, .308 Win, and 7.62x39 rifles which fit within the budget restriction. However, I always recommend a WASR on the grounds of parts commonality. The Saiga line of rifles uses a different magazine well, requiring modification to use military surplus and commercial 30-round magazines - and their proprietary magazines are expensive.

My number one reason for recommending a WASR over a Saiga is the availability of replacement parts and aftermarket accessories. The AK parts market is a leviathan in our country, with numerous small shops dedicated to crafting excellent quality parts for Kalashnikov rifles. The rifle is ubiquitous enough that most gunsmiths will have an easy time modifying just about any part of the rifle or adding any part you might come across. As a last aside, I've never attended a gun show at which AKs, ammunition, and parts were not available.

If you anticipate that a TEOTWAWKI scenario would shut down some of this availability, you may rest assured. Plans for the AK are available online (print and laminate a set today) and any talented machinist should be able to design, build, and test replacement AK parts with minimal difficulty or investment. If your chosen machinist is outfitted with alternative power arrangements, he or she should have no problems replacing worn parts - or even stamping entirely new receivers � during or after a crisis or SHTF scenario.

A shooter who doesn't have the $1,200-2,000 required for a high-quality full-bore rifle and glass may just find that an AK and good scope will fit better into a smaller budget, and offer comparable battlefield performance to a trained marksman. Above every other consideration, the quality of the shooter and his or her training is paramount. While a life-long, talented and devoted shooter may wring every last bit of potential from his or her rifle, the vast majority of us will be incapable of getting the best possible groups with our rifles until we�ve had significant range time and quality, professional training. In most cases, the AK offers an opportunity to acquire rifle, glass, ammunition, and ample training for the price you�d pay to get rifle and glass in some of the AR-15 or M1A designs.

As with all things in life, we take the good with the bad. The AK platform does, clearly, have some of the latter. If not, wouldn't everyone be an AK shooter?

First, an out-of-the-box AK will not have tack-driver accuracy. Nor would we want it, if it did. A "new" AK rifle, fed the most economical Wolf-brand commercial ammunition, will generally deliver a 2-4 MOA (MOA =[Roughly one] inch at one hundred yards) performance. For most AK owners, the knowledge that they can hit a circle averaging 3" in diameter at one hundred yards is plenty. These shooters always aim center-of-mass, and rely on the power of the 7.62 x 39 cartridge, which is fully capable of taking down the particular kind of big game for which it was designed.

There are a few AKs out there which possess better-than-typical accuracy, and which in the hands of a good shooter can produce 1-2 MOA groups. However, the vast majority of AK owners will never tune their rifles to the extent necessary to get this tight, because the steps necessary to wring this performance out of the rifle will also have a deleterious effect on the reliability of the firearm. Imagine that you have a two-ended spectrum; on the left, you have "looseness" or reliability, and on the right, you have "tightness" or accuracy. The AK-47 may be tuned to for either purpose, though the platform has a natural affinity for the reliability side of the spectrum.

The other negative with the rifle platform is the perception it engenders in civilians and in professional shooters. Non-shooter civilians will tend to recoil at the sight of an AK-47, as though it were possessed by the demons of the old Soviet Union. It has strong associations with our old nemesis, as well as revolutionaries, rebels, and terrorists. This is mostly because it has been a cheap, reliable rifle for people too poor or too politically isolated from the US to buy the M16 and other Stoner-derived weapons.

Professional shooters such as soldiers, mercenaries, and police will generally recognize the distinctive silhouette of the AK and the sound of its report, and have a tendency to associate both with a hostile force. This is largely because they and their allies carry the US-designed platforms, while the gang members, rebels, insurgents, and terrorists they've been fighting often carry the Kalashnikov.

Overcoming this prejudice pre-TEOTWAWKI is more a matter of common sense and restraint (not carrying openly except when at the range), while post-TEOTWAWKI few will encounter discrimination against someone willing to carry a rifle and help defend the community.

In conclusion, the Kalashnikov pattern deserves consideration from two groups of survivalists: those who can't afford to properly outfit an AR-15 or M1A or equivalent, and those who perceive rock-solid reliability as a paramount feature in a firearm. Even in the case of those who can afford a �better� rifle, the AK offers economy of savings which can be hard to ignore. It carries only the drawbacks of larger shot groups and perceptions among the general population, which can be overcome through practice and some wise decisions regarding the presentation of the weapon. - Z.M.

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

The AK-47 is one of the finest rifle designs ever stolen from the Germans.

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

The above quote sums up the AK perfectly. In a crisis one is not going to have time to tend to their defensive rifle every day, which is what the AR-15/M-16 requires (unless one has installed a gas piston conversion which will substantially help).

Until about 15 years ago I was extremely prejudiced against 'that dirty little rifle', then I came to my senses.

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

It is not just the rifle that has earned that reputation. Look at the beautiful generous case taper of the round it fires, made for smooth automatic functioning. Then look at the almost entire lack of case taper in a 223[made to shoot ground hogs out a bolt gun]

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

The 5.56 NATO round is the spawn of Satan. The expressed intention of its use is to maim for life rather than outright kill the enemy, as the concept is "wounding rather than killing immediately will require six enemy soldiers to tend to each wounded soldier taking those six out of the fight, so that is preferable". The unspoken intention is to have a lighter, more ineffective round fired indiscriminately out of a machinegun without restraint to burn up many more rounds of ammo - this is extremely profitable.

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

Then look at the almost entire lack of taper in the 30-06 round, which served faithfully and in massive numbers under horrible conditions.

I agree the AR should have a piston design, however.

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

The popular statement that the 5.56 round was developed with the intention to maim instead of killing is a complete myth. There was no design goal with that intention. I have read that statistically in recent conflicts, our troops with 5.56mm, facing predominantly 7.62mm - are wounded instead of being killed more often than the enemy. Many times a FMJ 7.62x39 will make a clean hole if it doesn't start tumbling. 5.56mm, with the proper velocity, will often nearly explode and fragment.

On this thread, http://www.timawa.net/forum/index.php?topic=17111.0, there are some graphic photos of what a 5.56 NATO round can do when shot in the leg. The 5.56 NATO is no joke and I don't feel it is underpowered at all. I think it makes compromises and is a different viable option (less weight, better range, accuracy, requires bullet fragmentation and cavitation, poorer barrier penetration, etc.). If there was really one true superior round, then everyone would be using it. If the 7.62x39 was so fantastic, the 5.45mm round would have never been developed.

I have always been a fan of the AK, but I ended up going the other direction and have switched over to the AR platform. Both rifles have pros and cons. I like the fact that the AR (like the 1911) is very modular and standardized. I can buy parts from any vendor and swap uppers, etc. I have been shooting ARs for many years now, and have yet to run into any real reliability problems. I have one rifle that I intentionally beat on and poorly maintain - and I have yet to have an issue with that one as well. Personally, I don't think you can go wrong either way. I just feel that if there was a SHTF scenario, there would be a lot more AR-15/M-16 rifles in the field, as well as a greater amount of ammunition and magazines lying around as well. I felt that if I trained with an AK, in most scenarios being on the run, I would eventually have to dump it and scrounge up a US weapon and ammo anyway. I decided it was in my best interest to switch over to training with the rifle that would most likely be available and used in the field. Once local, state and federal agencies (along with the US military) switches over to the AK platform - I will switch back.

For a different perspective, here is an article on the 5.56mm NATO:

http://www.futurefirepower.com/myths...-556-cartridge

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

Freemyland,

The 5.56 is a worthless round. If this were NOT true, then why have Special Forces gone to Chris Murray (outside normal channels BTW) to request him to build a better round on the M4 platform. Which is how the 6.8mm round came to be. And it's still in testing over in the sand.

Kindly notice I'm NOT dumping on the M16 platform (though it's reliablilty is questionable, even with the piston mod). But the round itself is worthless. I have stories, first hand, of our guys emptying a magazine on bad guy, who gets up, picks up his AK and kills the guy who shot him. THEN he falls over dead.

And our guys only getting wounded? Couldn't be that 32 lbs of BODY ARMOR they are all required to wear, now could it? Bad guys are not wearing ANY. So yeah, you shoot someone wearing body armor and they only get wounded? Versus shooting a guy NOT wearing body armor and he dies.

Geez. That's a no brainer. You hit them with enough .22 caliber rounds and EVENTUALLY they die. Epsecially when they are NOT wearing body armor.

Try that when the bad guy IS wearing body armor and you will end up dead. As he laughs at the light strike HIS body armor takes while he lights you up with a thirty caliber round.

Any MBR caliber that doesn't start with THREE is a waste of time.

Review all the conflicts the AR/M16 has been deployed in. At no time has it faced a force as well equipped (read as in wearing body armor) as the US military.

Vietnam, Panama, Somalia, Iraq (twice), Afghanistan...

Kindly name a conflict I've missed. You know, the one where the bad guys wore as much body armor as our guys do.

It does NOT exist.

And you will kindly realize that the M14 platform is being taken out of storage and put BACK into service BECAUSE it shoots the .308 round. The same round as the current SAW our guys carry. One SAW per squad, if they are lucky. One SAW per company if they are not.

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

this is practically obligatory:

http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/f...g?t=1250797447

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

IMO, That is a positive. :ok:

Researching beforehand would save you from the 'foot-in-mouth' problem you have...
 

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

^^Dude, from the article you linked:

Mk 48 Mod 0
This is a 7.62x51mm NATO version of the Mk 46, used by USSOCOM, when a heavier cartridge is required.[33] It is officially classified as an LWMG (Light Weight Machine Gun) and was developed as a replacement for the Mk 43 Mod 0/1. The M60 based machine guns are a great deal more portable than the heavier M240 based designs used elsewhere in the US military in the infantry medium machine gun role. However the M60 based designs have a long history of insufficient reliability. Trials conducted through the mid-1990s led the US Army to replace its M60 with M240B GPMGs. The M240B however, weighs in at ~27.5 lbs and is about 49" long with the standard barrel. NAVSPECWAR was reluctant to give up the increased portability of the M60 (~22.5 lbs, 37.7" OAL with the shortest "Assault Barrel") designs in spite of the M240's increased reliability. A request was put in for a new machine gun in 2001, and FN responded with a scaled up version of the M249 weighing in at ~18.5lbs with an OAL of ~39.5". The new design achieved much better reliability than the M60-based weapons while bettering its light weight and maintaining the same manual of arms as the already in-use M249. USSOCOM was slated to begin receiving deliveries of the new gun in August of 2003.[34]

Mk 48 Mod 1
The Mk 48 Mod 1 is an update of the Mk 48 Mod 0. Like the Mod 0, it is essentially an M249 scaled up to fire the 7.62x51mm NATO round. The Mod 1 utilizes a 19.75" barrel and weighs in at 18.37 lbs unloaded, and has a rate of fire of 500-625rpm.[35]


Also:

The PIP and Para versions of the M249 have also been used in the Iraq war since the invasion. By 2004, many M249s had been in service for almost twenty years and were becoming increasingly unreliable. Soldiers were requesting replacements and new features, and there are reports of soldiers holding their weapons together with duct tape.[42] The lethality of the 5.56 mm ammunition has been called into question by reports of enemy soldiers still firing after being hit multiple times

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

Heh... what is it about gun conversations that brings out the a-hole in people?

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

Read it.

M249 is the issue SAW we have in the service - NOT M240, which is GPMG. Been there, carried that. SAW uses 5.56.

Have a nice day. :bear_happy:

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

http://img.auctiva.com/imgdata/6/8/6...2402599_tp.jpg :5_1_120:

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

AK prOn..........heheheh

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q...s/PICT1031.jpg

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

He's right. The issue SAW is a 5.56mm. I've run rifle ranges for them when I was a Drill Sergeant. Be hard to use an M-16 magazine and ammo with a weapon that was 7.62 NATO!

Now that I opened a post in this debacle, I might as well state my preference. First, I have three AK's and they are in all three calibers, 7.62x39, 5.45x39, and 5.56mm. In an AK, I would take the 5.45x39 as my first choice.

Since I like to hit things far away, I'm a big fan of the AR platform. In 5.56mm and 6.8 SPC. I think the AR and AK both have pros and cons and the only way to win that argument is to own and use both!

As far as the stopping power of 5.56mm, my experience on animals is that it works just fine. I've put deer down with standard M193 when I have had to put down wounded animals I just walked up on. It does the job. If I was still a soldier, I would be comfortable with 5.56mm anywhere from 50 meters to well over 300. The tricky part is the less than 50m part. CQB. The 5.56mm just isn't ideal for that. At such close ranges, you may well hit them and well and yet they still close with you. For kicking down doors, I would want something wider and heavier. Like an FN SLP loaded with buckshot!

Gregg

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

Beats me...

But it gives me an excuse to pass these out...

http://goldismoney.info/forums/pictu...&pictureid=654

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

There can be no doubt about the deficiencies of the 5.56 NATO round. It is definitely a borderline round.

From wikipedia:

[From Dr. Roberts:

"Combat operations the past few months have again highlighted terminal performance deficiencies with 5.56x45mm 62 gr. M855 FMJ. These problems have primarily been manifested as inadequate incapacitation of enemy forces despite their being hit multiple times by M855 bullets. These failures appear to be associated with the bullets exiting the body of the enemy soldier without yawing or fragmenting. This failure to yaw and fragment can be caused by reduced impact velocities as when fired from short barrel weapons or when the range increases. It can also occur when the bullets pass through only minimal tissue, such as a limb or the chest of a thin, malnourished individual, as the bullet may exit the body before it has a chance to yaw and fragment. In addition, bullets of the SS109/M855 type are manufactured by many countries in numerous production plants. Although all SS109/M855 types must be 62 gr. FMJ bullets constructed with a steel penetrator in the nose, the composition, thickness, and relative weights of the jackets, penetrators, and cores are quite variable, as are the types and position of the cannelures. Because of the significant differences in construction between bullets within the SS109/M855 category, terminal performance is quite variable—with differences noted in yaw, fragmentation, and penetration depths. Luke Haag’s papers in the AFTE Journal (33(1):11-28, Winter 2001) describe this problem." However, if the bullet is moving too slowly to reliably fragment on impact, the wound size and potential to incapacitate a person is greatly reduced. Several alternate cartridges have been developed in an attempt to address the perceived shortcomings of 5.56mm ammunition including the 6.5 mm Grendel and the 6.8 mm Remington SPC."][6]

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

I absolutely agree with the above statement. SS109 and M855 perform better at distance barrier penetration but it can end up leaving only a .22 caliber hole - which is not good.

M193, on the other hand, when fired from the proper length barrel does its job well. Not to get gruesome, but here is a picture from the link I posted before. One shot to the leg with M193 (obviously not the same as getting shot with a .22 LR as some would have you believe) :bear_cry:

http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/k...4042009093.jpg

I disagree. When fired from a 20" barrel, 5.56 is a very lethal round.

5.56mm
http://www.firearmstactical.com/imag...files/M855.jpg

Everything is a trade-off. I have nothing against the AK or AR. I think the benefits of the 5.56 in comparison to the benefits of the 7.62x39 pretty make them pretty much even, with a little more power and barrier penetration going to the 7.62x39 and lighter weight and better accuracy going to the 5.56. For the 5.56 I like the fact that it is extremely easy to rapid fire and keep all of your rounds on target at distance - very easy.

I wouldn't have jumped in here, except for the fact that some are trying to state that the 5.56 is a worthless round - because that is just not true. Everyone has a favorite round (currently my favorite is 7.62x54R) - but I think it is misleading to totally disregard the merits of competing rounds...

I leave you with this interesting comparison of the AK-47 and M-16...

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

Thank you for this post...errr, I think

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

I'm not saying that the poodle-shooter round is completely worthless, just as close to worthless as one can get and still be considered 'effective'. lol

The proof of the OP was related to me by a CII friend who contracted with a certain 'company' to act as armorer for the Contras in the jungle in the '80s. The Contras were notoriously lazy and undisciplined, as in they didn't maintain their weapons (as referenced in the OP). He told me that under those harsh 'in the jungle' conditions he spend all his time working on the M16s to keep them running and hardly ever worked on the AKs and FALs 'cause the AKs and the FALs just kept on running despite the neglect and abuse.

Thanks for the laughs.

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

I know the AK can do what this FAL (Ol' Dirty owned by James in N. Texas) has done. What I'd really like to see is an AR withstand the exact same mudhole torture, have the water shaken out it, a patch run down the bore, and then resume shooting without a hiccup shooting over ten thousand rounds without being cleaned at all.

Total round count without being cleaned: over 15,000
Duration of torture test: over six years

(in case the images fail to load for you, but you will have to register to see 'The Tale of Ol' Dirty' - http://www.falfiles.com/forums/showt...6&pagenumber=1 )

http://www.falfiles.com/forums/attac...&postid=588016

http://www.falfiles.com/forums/attac...&postid=588022

http://www.falfiles.com/forums/attac...&postid=588027

http://www.falfiles.com/forums/attac...&postid=588030

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

I know that this used to be true, but from my research this is no longer the case. From what I read, the Saiga 20 line DOES take military surplus and commercial mags now:

"The components and features on the new SGL20 rifle resemble true Russian AK rifle, including the safety lever withcorrect shape and properly positioned dimple, the correct trigger guard with magazine catch and the correct bulletguide enabling SGL20 to accept any standard AK magazine,"

http://www.arsenalinc.com/downloads/sgl20/SGL20v04.pdf

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

Yes, with a couple small modifications, any Saiga(new or old) will take milsurp magazines. The only downside to the 5.56 is that milsurp magazines are getting expensive and hard to find... If you want the skinny, go to:

http://forum.saiga-12.com/index.php

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

This is not the case with the Legion line. No mod needed...

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

Why is this a caliber debate? The OP article was more about how good it keeps running when dirty and you don't have the time or supplies to clean because tshtf. In this case the AK-47 is better than the AR-15. Though I like a FAL better.

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

Yep!
Not to many people know that about the Ak 47.
German design, like everything the soviet union has, stolen technology or forced scientists to design for them.
Without the captured German scientists the ussr wouldnt have had nukes.
And if they didnt murder the PETER and his family they wouldnt have had a country.

The concept was stolen from the germans. And if Germany had that gun from the beginning of WWII it would have been a different outcome of the war for the Soviet Union. The communists would have been defeated when the germans surrounded Moscow.

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

Howdy Suckhoi!

I guess you're "friends" with Kokalis?

7.62x39 stinks. 5.56 is slightly better at everything except barrier penetration. If you want a real round step up to a 7.62x51.

BTW, the above statements are based on actual live fire against everything from live animals to dead animals to wood to concrete to brick to automobiles to barrels/jugs/bags/balloons filled with water.

This stuff aint rocket science. Like the author said, most tools with a rifle can't benefit from the accuracy increase from an AK to a more accurate rifle, so they might as well have a dead reliable stick with a 100 yard range.

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

That survivalblog article implied that if you're not getting an AK or an AR the only other choice is an M1A... wtf?

I would run a FAL, an AR10 or a case-mangling G3 long before I would haul around an M14 derivative. That said, if you don't plan to shoot much, 7.62x51 is a great choice. Goes fast, hits hard.

Also, if you must shoot that slow geezer of a round, 7.62x39, at least have the decency to shoot it out of a converted Izhmash Saiga, a Yugo or a Bulgarian Arsenal, or better yet, a vz. 58 variant.

Romanian AKs make Baby Jesus cry.

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

FWIW, Rawles is a huge FAL fan.

And also FWIW, the few M-14s the Contras had performed well alongside the AKs and the FALs. Rarely was there a need to repair the M-14s under the harshest of conditions. Additionally, FALs vary on accuracy, despite the builder and the best parts available - the Gunplumber himself told me that it's a crapshoot and he would not guarantee a MOA FAL with either a pristine StG58 chrome moly barrel or a brand new mil spec chrome bore Imbel barrel (both 19") on a new Imbel receiver using a pristine StG58 parts set. OTOH, it isn't that difficult to massage a box stock M1A to MOA accuracy.

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

Again, more pr0n required for a visual. :biggrin:

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q...PICT0082-1.jpg

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q...PICT0085-1.jpg

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

Something most be right about the M14, and .308, for it still to be in use in Iraq and Afghanistan...

http://api.ning.com/files/I7biqbcZ7G...070925_ms1.jpg

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

See also Sutton's work on the technology the West sold the USSR:
http://mailstar.net/sutton.html

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

The AK-47 is not a German design.
The concept is German.
There was a discussion of this over at Assaultweb.net.
The Russians had a number of good weapons designers/engineers who worked on the project with Kalishnikov.

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

The barrel-mounted bipod makes the scope useless....

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

You think that has as much effect as the wobbly stinking top cover scope mount?:wavey:

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

There is a reason why in Somalia the troops traded in M16's for M14's. From what I recall of the book (it's been about 8 years since I read it) the guys on the ground would shoot the Somali's multiple times and the fast moving .223 would just go right through them and they kept on fighting while they were high on khat. Whereas the .308 didn't have this problem.

I like the AR as a weapon platform but if my life depends on it I'm sticking with the AK hands down.

Re: Researching beforehand would save you from the 'foot-in-mouth' problem you have..
 

Actually, not so much.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M240_machine_gun

The M240 has been used by the United States armed forces since the mid 1980s. It is used extensively by infantry, as well as ground vehicles, watercraft, and aircraft. Despite not being the lightest medium machine gun in service, the M240 is highly regarded for reliability, and its standardization among NATO members is also seen as a major advantage.

READ IT YOURSELF. M240 - preferred weapon for most Spec Op jobs these days.

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

"SAW" refers to the M249.

It does not shoot 7.62

The M240 is not referred to as a "SAW"

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

A FYI: the M240 is none other than the FN MAG which was designed by Ernest Vervier in the early '50s, a very close associate of Dieudonne Saive, who was J.M. Browning's protege. Vervier assisted Saive in the development of the FAL. The DOD should have adopted the MAG but adopted the M60 instead. Somehow reason finally prevailed and the DOD ultimately replaced the M60 with the M240.

The MIC's DOD is known for making history's stupidest fukking choices with respect to small arms, the absolute most bone-headed being the 5.56 NATO 'poodle-shooter' round.

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

Once again Wallew is wrong and can't admit it. Typical gunsmith...oh well.

MaxRebel, AKs aren't M14s, and they aren't chambered in 7.62x51 (blah, blah, saiga, you know what I'm talking about). x39 aint anything like a 7.62MM. And where exactly were troops in Somalia getting their M14s so fast, the fight only lasted a matter of hours?

I'm sure we all know that guys hopped up on (insert high octane drug here) don't always go down immediately, even with solid hits from x51, '06, 8mm, or anything short of 50bmg or 12ga.

Now for the REAL question:

How many of the armchair commandos pontificating about terminal ballistics in this thread have actually gone out and tested 556 ball vs 7.62x39 ball on live targets? And what were the results?

Don't tell me about meaningless numbers on an external ballistics chart, don't tell me about the box o truth, tell me which puts down an animal of 50, 100, 150lbs, or whatever sized animal faster, with similar bullet placement. Tell me about the wound channels YOU HAVE PERSONALLY OBSERVED. Tell me about penetration, how far/long the animal ran. Did it drop on the spot? Was there contact with bone? What did the bullet look like (if found)? What kind of blood loss was there?

And please don't get off topic with non ball ammo. We all know you can do miracles with better bullet selection, and we all know that the 556 beats the x39 hands down at options here.:bear_rolleyes:

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

Why is it in some states then, that you can't hunt deer with .223?

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

Have you read the book Black Hawk Down by Mark Bowden and do you know anything about the fighting in Somalia other than what you gathered from the movie?

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

Because they have deemed .223 inadequate for humane kills on deer.

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

As a survival rifle the AK-47 is as close to perfect as it comes just ask the bazillion people hugging them as they sit in a cave, burned out house or mud hut around the world right now.

I would take a ak 47 against a bear if I had to it would not be my pefered weapon but 30 medium sized slugs that I can place in a 12" group as fast as i can pull the trigger gives me confidence the AR-15 does not even though the AR-15 has much better ergonomics.

Personally my SHTF gun is a 12 guage because if they are 300 yards away I am going to run. SHTF to me is not about taking all commers it is about the most bang for your buck and to me the 12 guage fits that bill lots of ammo choices and will kill anything in north america. besides try getitng a bird for dinner with a rifle when you are starving, and Buck shot really does work well on deer also.

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

The same reason you can't hunt deer with x39 FMJ.


MaxRebel, in answer to your questions, no, I haven't read that book. I do know two men who were there, does that count? I'm the biggest M14 fan going, but you don't just throw down your M16 and pick up an M14, it just doesn't work that way. Were there M14s present? Yes, as a DMR, but not as general issue. That's the same way they are now, present in small numbers for a very specific task.

Would I prefer to see them as a general issue arm? Yes, but it is not reality today, hasn't been in over 40 years, and will never be.

Back to the point, has anyone actually ever fired x39 ball into flesh? I have. It rarely yaws (unless it hits bone, and then not consistently), and almost never expands or deforms. It almost always makes one clean .310 hole straight through whatever you shoot, with little to no cavitation. IOW, it posesses all the traits folks claim to hate about 556.

In my experience, 556 either yaws, fragments, or both, over 80% of the time inside of 150-200 yards. This is much more consistent than even M80 or M2. The undisputed king of ball is 5.45 7N1, it yaws early and often, and makes a glorious mess, but it's only 10% or so more consistent than M193, and gives up a little penetration.

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

Nope and FWIW - this rifle doesn't have scope on it anymore.

I put it on a WASR before I sold it and replaced the top cover on the RPK with a plain one. I'm thinking of installing a side-mount rail to the receiver but haven't done that yet. My DSA Fal with scope is my long-range rifle. The RPK is my rapid fire bullet slinger. :bear_tongue:

And then there's always the Belt-Fed MG42 for super rapid fire power and I can string up hundreds of 8mm for non-stop action !!!

But, all in all those are good observations.

-AD

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

If you want to put a scope rail on your AK, the people who do it best are the folks at http://www.firinglineoklahoma.com

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

I'm kinda sorry I opened this thread. Maybe I'll move it over to the religion forum since some of y'all are so dogmatic in your opinions. :wink:

Anyway, not to throw gasoline on this spirited discussion(?), I forgot to add that a lot of Texas boys up there around Pflugerville in the hill country hunt the smallish deer with .223 all the time. I would think a 1:9 twist loaded with a Speer 70gr. soft point would do nicely.

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

Hunting regs don't cut the mustard for determining the value of a round. My state prohibits .22 (nominal) and below for big game. Even if the .22 in question zipped along at 8000fps and could vaporize whole chunks of large targets, it would still be not OK.
The notion of using assault variety weapons as survival pieces is dick swinging. What are you surviving? Zombies or hunger? Seems to me a good shotty or .22LR would be the deal for hunger survival. For zombies......hope you like tax stamps.
I wouldn't stand 200m in front of either an AK or AR, but I would take a bet on not getting hit by the AK. I used to shoot high power match (alas, not very well) and the AR guys made itty bitty groups. Those of us with veteran M1's didn't do as well. Once in a while an AK would show up to the line and be passed around. Fun, but inaccurate at 100 yards. When I built my AR, I left competition and popped fluffies. It was fun, but the .270 with 100gr Speers really did the deal on chucks.

It's boring on the economic/gold/silver front. May as well argue guns.

I think folks who point out the relative lack of cleaning requirements for the AK as a survival plus may as well have "Incompetent Boob" tattooed on their foreheads. What- you can't find ANY lube and a toothbrush? Pointing to Contras' lack of professionalism as a positive point for using any arm is laughable. Contras = perfessional fightin' force. Please. If you wind up in a position where you CANNOT maintain whatever weapon you've got, you're toast anyway-and it ain't the gun letting you down. Too bad you didn't learn trapping, theft, or using a fishing net.
As for the .223/5.56...IIRC it derived from the .222. The effectiveness of the .223 is dependent on barrel twist and bullet weight. The original specs were 55 grains and a 1-12" (again, IIRC) twist. Impact would yield a tumbling action, which gave some pretty impressive terminal ballistics. More recent failings of the AR platform can be muchly attributed to a less than ideal bullet weight/ rifling twist combo. A less stable bullet, no matter the weight, would bring back that old black magic.
AK-47 as a survival gun? Not unless I had nothing else. Great assault weapon. AR, too. Both cream of the crop in proper trim.

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

My FIL takes a couple of doe every year w/ a .223 bolt....

eyes n ears - aim small miss small

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

My point about the example with the Contras is that in extremis the AR is flat out not reliable enough to be suitable as a stand alone gun without others around you to support you should you get a failure.

In an emergency situation the highest priorities are going to be procurement of plenty of safe water, food, shelter, sanitation, hygiene, maintaining security, etc. and every activity which goes to support those needs. Realistically, under those circumstances keeping one's rifle maintained daily is going to be deferred, especially considering that one will end up having one's hands saturated with CLP, Hoppe's, or whatever all the time (unless one has the foresight to stock away a ton of disposable nitrile gloves). To be as close to 100% reliable as possible the AR platform demands continuous maintenance on a daily basis even when not being fired. I've several friends who are vets of the SEA war games and every single one of them will confirm this. OTOH the AK can be totally neglected and it will still go bang. For those who've never been in a real shit blizzard, reliability is ultimately the highest consideration, and with respect to reliability without maintenance the AR is the absolute worst possible choice.

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

What you posted in the OP was posted on James Wesley, Rawles' website, which is very interesting because no one is a bigger fan of the FAL than Rawles.

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

I am a big FAL fan myself...

FWIW, I recently discovered my little Saiga 223 loves the Wolf 75gr. hollowpoints and shoots it quite accurately. Might try loading up some Hornady 75 OTMs and see what's up with that...

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

Offensive "survival rifles" are not for surviving hunger. That's what the preps are for. The rifles we're discussing are for surviving attack by those who are barely surviving hunger.

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

The point of the OP is essentially that the AK can have ZERO maintenance over a very long period of time (as in months/years) and it will still go bang every time you pull the trigger. Only a handful of hi cap semi-autos can meet that criteria, the FAL being another.

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

A 'nam vet friend related a story about the AK recently. He said that in the hooch he shared with his buddies they had an AK sitting in the corner for several months through the monsoon season. One day they picked it up to screw around with it and found it was seized up with the bolt rusted to the trunnion. They beat the bcg open, inserted a magazine, and then emptied the mag in a single burst. (there was no cleaning or lube involved) Not a single hiccup.

I'm still waiting for someone to show us all how an AR can begin to approach this level of abuse and still be 100%. lol

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

Nawww.......you're right on target ~ just look at all the posts and popularity of such a topic !

I think you should start some more, like..........The usefulness of the Ka-Bar as a Survival Knife........or The usefulness of the 50-cal in long range targeting........

Just for starters and of course I'm just sayin'

:bear_happy: Cheers :beer:

-AD

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

Well I guess it boils down to, if you're gonna kill something make sure you select a load that isn't straight ball right? After all when you're hunting deer you're not following Geneva conventions.

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

Wrong,in Somalia the primary rifle was the M-16, .the M-14 has been relegated to special ops units and the Navy since the early 80s. this is about logistics,.308 is used in M-60 machine guns as well as M-14s, although i was not in Somalia I knew fellow servicemen that were, the 16 dropped them as well as anything else. think about this, if the smaller caliber is so ineffective, why did the Soviets dump the 7.62x39 for the 5.45x39 in the late 70s? ( this was a army that embodied shock and awe)The US for a long time was the only NATO member to use the 5.56 the rest used 308 AND FALs (or their derivatives).The M-16 is not the greatest rifle, but far from trash. another note, no major battle has ever been lost to US troops carrying the M-16. before you say stupid responses,politicians lost Vietnam not the troops.

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

Smart choice and perhaps the best of both worlds. The reliability of an AK and the accuracy of the .223 in one rifle.

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

I have shot deer with an SKS and a Ruger Mini-14,and also an M-1 Carbine. The 7.62 (123 gr. SP Sierra)left a large exit hole in the the shoulder from around 40yds deer run sometimes from shots from all kind of calibers , this one tried, but couldnt as its front shoulders were inop, it bled out pretty quick. the .223 (55 gr.BTHP Hornady) struck a deer around 50 yds small entry hole lower left shoulder,deer just died. when i gutted him lung torn open, heart in pieces (3 to be exact) bulet fragmented in ribs and rt shoulder. M-1 Carbine (110gr. SP Speer) took 3 shots @ 25 yds deer suffered, final shot to head as it was kicking and flailing on the ground one shot right shoulder large entry hole, lung torn, mass internal bleeding, second hole large near spine (must have brought him down) fragmented no exit, third shot left side of skull 5 yds cracked skull,little penetration into brain..

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

Attachment 77924

The comment to which you elude was in reference to an FAL.

Ever tried to bellycrawl w/ one a dem sumbiches?

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

I just spoke with this 'nam vet friend to pick his brain some more.

What I had forgotten that he had told me previously: they beat the bcg open with a 2x4, and when they shot that AK he said "shit flew out from it in 360 degrees - rust, bugs, and all sorts of crap; in hindsight what we did was really stupid." He said they didn't even bother to check the bore to see if it was clear. lol

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

Again, read the book and read my post. The m-16 was the primary rifle and in the book they Special Forces troops said the preferred the m-14 to the m-16. It wasn't standard issue and I realize that. I was 6 at the time so all I know is the accounts that were in the book. I read the book maybe 8 years ago after my brother in law who was in Marine OCS at the time recommended it since he had to read it for some class.

It's kinda akin to the question why does Marine Force Recon and Delta Force still use 1911's? Because the 9mm is an inferior round same with the 5.56.

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

And to add some more fuel to the fire: ..........there were follow up letters to the original article

yeah baby. :ok:


Eight Letters Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle

James
In reply to the 20 Aug 09 letter on the AK series rifles, I feel I should add my experiences. I recently returned from Afghanistan where I worked as a security contractor. When I got there our guard force was armed with the AK but many of the rifles were in poor condition. An initial inspection showed at least 30% of them weren't worth having and the initial range training proved things to be much worse. I won't bore you with the details but in the end we had to go through 56 rifles to find 19 that would pass muster for the static guards. Even then we had to be very generous in the standards we would accept. Ultimately we were forced to accept any rifle that functioned properly (safe, full auto and semi auto), could hold a group no larger than 3 inches at 25 yards (yep, that bad) and could adjust the sights to the point where 3 of the 5 round group would hit the 3 inch center of our locally produced zero target.


I say this to stress that maintenance is still vitally important to ensuring the proper function of the rifle. Much of the so called evidence of the durability of the AK is anecdotal evidence. [Colonel] Hackworth's book About Face: Odyssey of an American Warrior mentions pulling a rifle out of the mud and it running through a full magazine without fail and some tout that as the ultimate accomplishment of small arms. What is not covered is if the rifle could hit a man sized target when it did so. Ultimately making noise is no guarantee of success, stopping people is and that is best done by actually hitting the target. You can not abuse and/or ignore a rifle, even the AK, and expect it to function indefinitely.


There are also questions as to the wound ballistics of the 7.62x39 ammunition. Trauma surgeons in Vietnam said that 'clinical experience showed many wounds from the weapon (AK-47) resemble those of much lower velocity handguns'. Just being a .30 caliber round does not make it somehow superior. Once again going back to our Vietnam era surgeons they tell us the 5.56 round of the day were far worse to the health and well being of people hit by them. This does not always have meaning to the survivor as we are not limited to the military loadings. Zak Smith has an informative article on maximizing the potential of the 7.62x39 but it is no longer on his site, I believe it has been included in a recent compilation book on the AK. For those who have the AK as their go to gun and who can load for it it is probably worth reading. There are tradeoffs to be made with any decision and while the wound ballistics (both science and the surgeons who treated the wounds tell us) may not be the most impressive my experience shows me they do a number on cars while still allowing the shooter to stay on target through a long burst.


The AK is a fully capable choice if the shooter understands the limitations of the gun and cartridge. Unfortunately I think far too many people allow emotion to take over and they shut out logic and the repeatable results of scientific testing. While on leave from Afghanistan I attended a training course where I used the AK and I learned a lot. Many of it's limitations can be countered with decent training and hands on experience and while I now have a more favorable view of the gun but it still isn't my first choice.


One last note, the Saiga can be adapted to use the cheaper surplus magazines with just a little time and effort so I don't view that as a reason not to get the Saiga over the WASR. Converting to the military configuration is far more complex but still relatively simple for anyone reasonably handy. That information is easy to find online so I won't add to the length of this note to cover it. Most parts that you find commercially available in the US can be used on either the WASR or the Saiga (and the Saiga is a better- built gun). Ultimately it will cost a little more than the WASR if you convert it to the military configuration so cost may yet be the deciding factor for some. - Jake (No longer vacationing in Kabul)





Jim-
Thanks for posting the well balanced piece on the AK and it's potential and pitfalls. The chief shortcoming I find in the AK is indeed the public perception and Pavlovian reaction to it's distinctive profile and reputation.

On the plus side, and not mentioned in the piece, if you live in the heavily wooded and brushy South, the AK is the perfect rifle for the 40 to 100 yard shots you are likely to see. The AK is very easy to sling or carry in the thick woods.

Also, it doubles as a great Whitetail gun in the kind of country some of us live in and I've had good results using it in tree stands.

Two to four MOA is about right in the accuracy department.

Thanks, and God's peace, - Palmetto





Hey Jim,
I was happy to see the AK getting a nice write up on your blog the other day. I have trained with the AK for a number of years now and really appreciate not only how durable it is, but also how easy it is to teach others to use and maintain.

Maybe I am just lucky, but out of the score of AK's that I have used all but 2 (Built by a questionable shop) where very combat accurate! Many folks get hung up on their gear being super accurate when they can't even come close to utilizing even the tenth part of that accuracy in the field.

From someone who spends at least some part of most days out and about with a long gun as a truck/farm/ranch gun the AK has many attractive qualities and I find it complimenting my .30-30 very well when I want to be better armed and don't have to worry about keeping a low profile.

As far as running the AK learn to run it as an AK don't try to run it as an AR, FAL, M1A or any other system! Yea there is cross over, but many of the things I have heard folks "complain" about are things that when used properly either don't matter or are advantages when run as an AK should be run.

Don't think of the AK as a poor alternative for those who can not afford better! It is a easy to live with system that most anyone can learn to shoot and maintain in short order. I have many other choices and I find the AK to be a very useful tool that many would find a valuable addition to their tool box!

There are some good AK schools out there that can teach you how an AK should be run! Go out and get the knowledge while you can.

You and your family continue to be in our prayers! - SD in West Virginia






Sir,
The article about AK type rifles had some great points about the usefulness of the AK platform. I personally believe that the AK is preferable to the AR for most people. I do find myself in the minority of people that isn't true for however. Those of us with military or law enforcement backgrounds that have spent years training with the AR have to relearn several concepts to run the AK as well as we already run an AR. In the civilian world it would take me years to unlearn the AR basics, so I sadly traded my AK rifles for other supplies.

However, there was one AK that I loved. It was, in fact, a Saiga. It had taken a trip to Broken Arrow, Oklahoma to Tromix Lead Delivery Systems. It was reworked into a conventional AK platform with a side folder stock. It was the most accurate and reliable of the AK rifles I've owned or shot. The process isn't overly difficult, you can find do it yourself instructions in several different locations. It takes just a basic amount of skill and some basic tools and the Saiga can be reworked into the conventional format with pistol grip that easily accepts surplus magazines. - JB





Sir,
I agree with the author on most points and would add that the rifle and it's ammunition are common in these parts. I would disagree about it's accuracy and find most of the variants of the rifle can only be expected to shoot 5-6" groups. Although this might seem lousy, I believe it would good enough for snap shooting within 150 yards. Given heavily wooded terrain, I might expect most encounters would be less than 100 yards. Using silhouettes, my groups with the AR-15 during training were not significantly better. Zeroing the AK properly by centering the pattern it sprays is important. Saying the AK 'groups' is generous. Many more shots than the 3 to 5 rounds required for a much more accurate rifle are needed to find it's pattern. Zeroing it's pattern can be a frustrating process, yet it proves to be worthwhile.

Perhaps another little known secret is the fragmenting 8M3 bullet found on Wolf's Military Classic ammunition and famed Sapsan brand. A recent Guns and Ammo publication featured the AK and it's ammunition. This is the next best in performance to [American commercial] soft point ammunition. A less expensive alternative isn't found. Try it on a gallon sized milk jug filled with water and the difference between FMJ and the 8M3 is instantly noticeable. Ballistic gelatin shows 3 inches of penetration before it violently fragments and penetrates about 14 inches. - E. L.




James
I agree with the article on the AK. When the boy king was elected I was forced by circumstances to get a battle rifle and couldn't find a decent AK in my area that was worth having, so I ended up with a shorty AR. I'm back to thinking of an AK for my third rifle, after my that and my SKS.

For those folks who don't know much about the Kalashnikov, I encourage them to go to Gabe Suarez's forum. He has several subforums about the AK and has also written several books on the gun. He also offers training classes through Suarez International as well as DVDs on various AK related subjects. Gabe also offers AK parts and furniture through his forum store.

Folks on warrior talk are also willing to answer questions from people wanting to learn the AK too. They are good people and like to help get people up and ready for whatever is coming in the future. - LK in West Virginia






JWR,
I've been reading your site for a while now and want to thank you very much for it. The post regarding AK 47s was interesting and useful. I'll add my two Lincoln's worth.

The Primary accuracy problem inherent with AKs (and with SKSs) is not so much internal, it's the short sight radius. There is now a relatively cheap fix for this. Tech Sights (tech-sights.com) now sells an aperture sight for both. It's a vast improvement over the factory sight. It also fits the Saiga. I've got one on an SKS (I had Williams [sight] on it before) and I really like it. The only drawback to it is that it now takes a screwdriver to strip the rifle.

I'm an Instructor In Training with Appleseed, and we regularly have folks who shoot Rifleman with AKs (Expert on the Army Qualification Test).

During the mid-1980s to early-1990s, I spent a fair amount of time in a few garden spots in Africa (involved in the aid business) and occasionally toted a rifle. It was invariably an AK, unless I was lucky enough to find an FN. My favorites were the South Africans and the Galil.

Thanks for the work you're doing. God Bless. And our prayers go out for the Memsahib. - Capt. G. in Texas





Mr. Rawles,
I'm writing in regard to the article ZM wrote about the usefulness of the AK-47 as a survival weapon. In his article he sings the praises of the M4/AR15 over the AK due to the inherent accuracy of the M4 over the AK. While he does note the AK platform is more dependable than the M4/AR15, I think he under estimates just how important that aspect is in the comparison of the two platforms.

Frankly, unless you're a trained infantryman who has spent considerable time with the M4 and are prepared to clean the weapon numerous times a day, the M4 is one of the least ideal weapons to rely upon in a survival situation. On the other hand, the ruggedness and dependability of the AK, with adequate accuracy, is the ideal firearm for the survivalist who has more to worry about than cleaning his weapon numerous times a day.

Just how important is dependability? On March 23rd, 2003, a convoy of the 507th Maintenance was ambushed at Nasiriyah, Iraq. Aside from the fact that 11 American soldiers were killed and 6 taken POW, the US Army's after action report found that every single American firearm had been rendered inoperable by the desert conditions. M2s, M4s, M16s, and the SAW-all of them were found to be nothing more than good-looking clubs during the battle. Of course, the Iraqi Kalashnikov didn't have the problems the American firearms had, and they held the field after the remnants of the 507th high-tailed it out of Nasiriyah. There have been other noted incidents of M4s and SAWs failing in the desert conditions of Afghanistan and Iraq. One has to wonder how many Americans have paid the ultimate price over the last 40+ years dealing with such an unreliable weapon.

In conclusion, the M4/AR15 is a excellent range rifle or SWAT weapon, but unless you intend on cleaning the firearm numerous times a day, which is doubtful in a SHTF situation, it is best to go with an AK or other dependable rifle and take a pass on the finicky M4 platform. - Rusty in New Mexico

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

The .45 has more stopping power than the 9mm Beretta it is without a doubt, the 9mm has the ability to acquire follow up targets faster and with greater control than a 1911.It also holds a much larger magazine therefore it is superior on a battlefield. I dont buy into the whole "Inferior round" theory as the Germans,British and others used the cartridge with devastating results in two World Wars and long after.(How many allied servicemen were killed by "inferior" 9mm MP 40s? or Germans with Stens?) The 1911 is an excellent weapon but all pistols are last ditch weapons ,the .45 caliber is better in CQB.thats the main reason Special Forces still use them.

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

What this fellow fails to mention here is the origins and age of those AKs.

I'm betting in the case cited those were 25 y.o. AKs which where manufactured with homemade hand tools in mud huts in Pakistan and have had a really, really hard life. lolololololol

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

There's a distinction there, those were subguns firing subgun 9 sillymeter ammo (out of longer barrels). When the Beretta M9 was first adopted by the DoD to replace the Govt. Model there were cases of serious injury due to catastrophic failure (the slide not stopping) when some folks used the higher powered 9 sillymeter subgun ammo in their Berettas. Ouch!

Also, when using a subgun there's the 'stitching' effect of immediate multiple wounds which is a huge factor.

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

There are some really trashy AKs on the US market, too... some of those guns made from used parts kits were pretty well used up. Some of those WASRs are really junk, too. With good selection, however, there are some AKs that are more accurate than many would think. Over at WarriorTalk(in an AK vs AR thread ;), there was one person reporting a high percentage of hits on a torso sized/shaped gong at 500 yds, and about a 40% hit rate at 600 yds. I know that with an SKS, I can hit what I'm aiming at over 450yds. At shorter ranges, there are several commercial loadings that are designed to yaw & fragment like the M193. At longer ranges, you'd probably want soft point ammo, but it is quite possible to hit a person at well over 150 yards with an AK.

There are a lot of trashy ARs out there, too. Possibly more bad ARs than bad AKs! However, if you spend the money for the right rifle or parts, they can be almost as reliable as an AK, and can tolerate quite a bit of diry/gunk AS LONG AS IT IS LUBED. There are people who run thousands of rounds in their ARs without cleaning, and it just goes and goes. If you just have to have an AR, DYODD and get a good one. A gas piston is not necessary for reliability.

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

For anyone not sick of this thread and wanting more punishment:

http://goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?t=202478

And here: http://goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?t=197139

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

OH Man! that's Vintage SC!!!...


That thread's why I joined GIM:banana:





















:biggrin:

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

i have three of this gun i may sell them . there still in the box they came in ... http://www.centerfiresystems.com/rom...kagun-ruf.aspx ,,, would you guys hang on to them if you had them or sell i would still have two left that i will be keeping

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

So the bottom line, which round is best?

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

LOL

Troll!

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

6.5 Grendel, by far.

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

That would be the Century Arms Int'l made junk. Not only did that f up the AKs they put out, they f'ed up everything else they've touched.

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

Fantastic piece of kit the AK - so robust, reliable, and it actually FEELS like a real weapon. Packs a good punch at close ranges, and you can carry a stack of ammo with you. I havent shot the new calibre - but the old 7.62x39 is a great round for its intended use. If the AK was a car, it would be an early mustang with a 351 V8. (or something compact with a 350 chev).

My 2nd choice weapon of all time !

Keep in mind what the AK was designed for though - a group of 10+ guys all with AKs get to rush and overwhelm a position. Works very well for that, thanks to the 30 round mag and close range punch. Not the best choice of weapon for being surrounded by federal agents.

I was bought up on the L1A1 (FN FAL), which can be a demanding mistress at the best of times. Has a long learning curve, and requires that you treat it well at all times. Its a bitch to carry, and takes a strain on the wrists to hold it in the patrol position all the time.
(btw - this kiwi guy has some very decent reviews on his channel, if you like firearms)

But what a sweet mistress it is !! - If the L1A1 was a car, it would be a temperamental V12 Jaguar. Once its tuned up and oiled just right - guaranteed headshots at 400m, and guaranteed body hits at 800m without a scope. Knocks holes through brick walls and cracks trees apart. Gotta love 7.62x51 calibre.

The L1A1 was my first serious girlfriend, and it still remains my No1 choice of firearm. I still have cracked teeth on my right hand side jaw from all the hundreds of rounds we fired off together :)

This weapon was designed to allow a group of 10 guys with this rifle to hold off a horde of enemies with AK's. You can pick them off at range, and then hold out 1-shot 1-kill till close range. Big + heavy + long reach gives the advantage in hand to hand combat after that.

Never really liked the M16 very much - although easy and accurate, it just never felt like a rifleman's rifle to me. Its the Toyota corolla of firearms. As our instructor used to tell us - "its allright to give to the kids so they can shoot the rats off the lounge, but thats about it".

The M16 was designed to .. cut costs and look good.

You cant go wrong with an AK .. and at the prices they are going for in the US, you would be mad not to have one.

For a backup piece - have a hunt around for an old Swedish 6.5x55mm carl gustav - the long barrelled version with a mauser bolt action. I have a 1917 model, and its the bee's whiskers for long range shots. Bullet flies flat and fast, and will slice with wings off a mosquito at 1000m. A droolworthy budget sniper rifle.
http://www.northcapepubs.com/swfig2.jpg

If I was in the states, Id have to have an M1 garand as well - now that is a good rifle !! Id want to clean it every day if I had one.

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

:tongue_ma:Attachment 77960

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

so what, just ad some attachments...:biggrin:

http://i542.photobucket.com/albums/g...lock_870-1.jpg

Tip: fire the AR and the Glock at the same time you are racking a new shell into the shotgun

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

Sounds consistent with what acquaintances have told me regarding their employment there.

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

I've got both and had them for many years and love them both.Heh, Heh, for sheer short range terror infliction and descruction its pretty hard to beat a folded up AK, especially at dusk!
Friggin' blowing flames and smoke out of everywhere and sparks out the barrel and following the bullets, too much fun!!:36_1_11:

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

There is a lot of good posts on this thread. Obviously both the AK and AR platforms have their strengths and weaknesses. I would not feel at all unprotected if armed with either weapon. I'd like to add a few points that others haven't considered.
I was in the Marines shortly after the changeover from the M16A1 to the A2. While I did encounter some occaisonal jams in the A2's they were pretty reliable weapons overall. Bear in mind that this was in the forests of North America not the in jungles or desert (I was fortunate enough to miss out on Twentynine Palms). I have no doubt the AK would be a much more reliable weapon in those enviroments but as I live in VA we don't have a lot of jungles or deserts. Either platform would work well in my area. I currently own a Bushmaster AR and it's been a very accurate and reliable weapon thus far. Of course it's taken to the range regularly not drug around the woods.
The weapons we were issued in the Marines were new and were not abused as many military weapons so often are. I believe this is why I had a better experience with the M16's than some that have served after me. Newer weapons are often in a lot better shape in the armed forces than a rifle that's had 30 owners. How many people use their $600 AK's or $1200 AR's to lift someone over a wall? Military weapons are also cleaned to death. I am not talking about a routine and necessary cleaning. I am talking about a weapon that has not been shot in several weeks yet is cleaned several times a week with solvents and materials not suited for firearms. This is done because some fool is going to be poking away at the weapon with a Q tip and anything other than a spotless Q tip signifies that the weapon is "Dirty." I would also like to point out that I never saw a rifle or pistol magazine removed from service when I served. Bad mags just keep getting used and the weapon is often blamed. This was my experience. Others may have seen different practices.
As this thread was started to debate the usefulness of an AK for a survival weapon I'd like to make one point regarding ammo.
There is a lot of .223/5.56 ammo out there. Every gun store, police station and military base if full of this caliber. It's great if you can stockpile tens of thousands of rounds for TEOTWAWKI. If for some reason you can't or cannot bring your ammo with you then it's very likely that will be able to eventually find, buy or trade for some 5.56. The same may not be said for 7.62x39mm. In any case the 7.62 would be more expensive. There is a lot of AK ammo out there but it would be harder to find. What are the statistics for 5.56 ammo sold per year in the USA vs. 7.62x39mm? I have no idea but I would guess that even disregarding what is sitting on military bases and in police stations there would be much more 5.56. Most of it would be brass cased as well.
A great deal of the AK ammo would be steel cased and many claim that you cannot reload steel cased ammo. As I've read many accounts by those that claim this is wrong and swear that they reload steel cases I will disregard that myth. All seem to agree however that it is harder to reload steel cases. Most reloaders do not do so. In any regard there is likely to be less 7.62x39mm ammo floating around in TEOTWAWKI.
As I said earlier, I'd feel well armed with either platform (at least in my area) and I don't have any ingrained predujices regarding AK's or AR's. As this was a survival oriented thread I do have to consider ammo availability a consideration.

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

Welcome aboard Patriotme...

It's always good to have experienced input on this forum. :ok:

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

What kind of Jar Head is this, never having been to the stumps? Were you stationed on Okinawa at least?

Semper Fi

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

I used to believe that. Then the 6.8 SPC people changed the rules. Changed the chamber spec, rifling, etc. Suddenly the race between them is much more even. And I can buy 6.8 uppers and ammo without having to deal with a bunch of super high priced proprietary stuff.

I've only got one 6.8 SPC upper so far but I'm impressed. Your choice _might_ still be the best but the "by far" part is obsolete!

http://68forums.com/forums/index.php

Gregg

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

Yep, I was in Oki for a while. I just lucked out on missing Twentynine Palms. Actually I missed it twice because I got recalled for several weeks in 1991 for Desert Storm but the war ended one week before they were going to send a bunch of us off for desert training (I was an 0331). I guess I just wasn't meant to run around the desert sweating and looking like a sand covered sugar cookie.

Semper Fi devil dog

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

http://goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?t=332868

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

If I had to choose between an AK or a M16 or a Saw, I choose the AK. Its more reliable.

I carried a SAW for 3 years in the ARMY and I hated the pos. In Bosnia, 96, I had to clean it daily. More than the M16 in my unit. The only advantage I got from it was on conveys, it was a belt feed weapon for the drive.


Next, its about the shooter, if you spray and pray, your going to miss, if you practice shooting under stand the weapon you fire, you should be able to kill anyone with 1 shot. Thats if you know what you are doing and is not rushed. If someone is shooting at you or an animal is charging, then its a different ball game. I would still take an automatic.

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

Ok, I'll play
:565:

To answer the OP's question (that is what we were trying to do, right?)...

Yes, the AK is useful for a survival weapon. Very much so.

Think of your choice of weapon like this - your tired, hungry, dirty, cold and there are lots of dangerous, strange people running around. your not sure when things will return to something you used to call "normal". to make things worse, it just started drizzling. could the ak be useful in a situation like that? you bet.

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

For a real world look into firearms, I feel FERFAL has the best insight. Care to guess which rifle HE chooses? Hint. NOT AK OR AR.

His preference is for 7.62x51 (.308) and would choose the AK over the AR strictly from a caliber basis ONLY. He says if you don't understand that, go take a Physics I class.

I've been rereading a LOT of Ferfal lately, as his experiences should give pause to most, because he IS LIVING this SHTF right now. HE HAS BEEN LIVING IT FOR ALMOST TEN YEARS. If you just want to argue, be my guest, but I prefer to get some insight from someone who is still living the nightmare we are about to enter into in this country.

In a different thread he tells the story about 'grenade guy', a person he knows who carries a live grenade as a back up to his .357 magnum revovler. He says grenades are available, when other survival guns are not, for any price. And ammo? He says forget buying it by the case. Most places won't even have one or two boxes. And the price skyrocketed after SHTF, by 300% OR MORE if your favorite caliber is actually available. Hint, ammo as an investment performed better than gold and silver did.

Here is a snippet from one of his early threads that I THINK came from The Frugal Squirrel...

Completely UNEDITED. I changed colors to highlight a few passages and bolded a few sentences (yes, even the one where he says that a couple of rounds from a .223 will kill just as dead) to put his message home. On to what FERFAL has said about guns and the survival situation he finds himself in.
---

PART III: GUNS, AMMO AND OTHER GEAR

After TSHTF in 2001, only the most narrow minded, brain washed, butterfly IQ level idiots believed that the police would protect them from the crime wave that followed the collapse of our economy. A lot of people that could have been considered antigun before, ran to the gun shops, seeking advice on how to defend themselves and their families. They would buy a 38 revolver, a box of ammo, and leave it in the closet, probably believing that it would magically protect them from intruders.

Oh, maybe you don�t think that firearms are really necessary or your beliefs do not allow you to buy a tool designed to kill people. So you probably ask yourself, is a gun really necessary when TSHTF? Will it truly make a difference? Having gone through a shtf scenario myself, total economical collapse in the year 2001, and still dealing with the consequences, 5 years later, I feel I can answer that question. YES, you need a gun, pepper spray, a machete, a battle axe, club with a rusty nail sticking out of it, or whatever weapon you can get hold of.

A LOT has been written on survival weapons. Everyone that is into armed survival has his or her own idea of the ideal gun battery. Some more oriented to a hunting point of view, others only as self defense means and others consider a little of both, and look for general purpose weapons. Talking about guns, there is one special subject I want to rectify, and it�s the point on what�s the primary weapon for the survivalist, specially an urban survivalist that has to function in a society, yes, even after the SHTF. The primary defensive weapon for the survivalist is his HANDGUN. It�s the weapon that stays with him when he is doing his business around town of working on the field. The survivalist IS NOT a soldier, even though you are a soldier or you once were the meanest mother on the battle filed, your home town is not a battlefield and it wont be, even if the SHTF. A LOT of water has to go under the bridge until the situation gets to a point where you can calmly walk down the street with a rifle on your shoulder. People, if you are interested in real world SHTF situation and you want to prepare for the real deal, then understand that this isn�t black or white. You wake up one day and listen on the radio that the economy collapsed and that the stock market closed indefinitely. What do you do? You still have to go to the office/work/whatever .Kiss the wife good bye and walk to the office with your AR across your back, or across your chest, Israeli style, and ready to shoot? You won�t get far. Someone will shoot you or throw you in jail, or in a mental institution.

What I�m trying to explain, is that it�s ok to prepare for China invading you country, Germans and UN or Martians. That is the extreme, less likely worst case scenario.

There is an infinity spectrum of gray between the black and white. White being your average normal day and black being total TEOTWAWKI, lizard men invading the planet.

Rifles do have a place in the survivalist�s arsenal, and a very important one. But you have to understand that 90% of the time, the handgun will be the weapon you have available when you need one. You can�t compare to a trooper in Iraq that has his weapon with him at all times. I ask you how many soldiers do you know that keep wearing cammo and totting their M4s around town when they return home?

What works for war does not work for the survivalist, especially the urban survivalist.

Even if you live in a retreat far from town, you have to work, don�t you? Or do you have employees that take care of all your mundane tasks, leaving you all day to keep watch with your rifle ready? A soldier is part of a huge machine; HIS job is to carry that rifle, while others take care of other needs. A survivalist, one that is not part of a large survivalist group, has no one to cover for him. When a new guy looks for advice on what to get for defense, some will recommend a rifle or shotgun as a first defensive weapon.

Let�s say race riots start in this guy�s city. He still has to go to work every day. What is he supposed to do? Shove his pump shotgun in his pocket? A handgun, even though less powerful, can be used for home defense AND go with you wherever you need to go. If the place floods, he can still hop into an evacuation boat without leaving his weapon behind. I�m sure no rescue team will pick you if you are carrying a long arm. They�ll ask you to leave it behind for sure. What if your government, realizing that TSHTF and that they lost control of the events, bans all firearms indefinitely? Don�t know about you, but if things are that bad, I�d like to be armed. You can hide a handgun under a jacket. You can�t hide a long arm under your clothes.

I think it was Clint Smith who said that the handgun is only used to fight his way to his rifle. Man! That sounds �macho�. I�d love to see him walking into Wal-Mart with his tactical M4, taking the subway, visiting the doctor or going to the bank. �Over here Mr. Smith, you can hang you M4 right next to my coat� I don�t think so. Guys, unless you have your own shooting school, you do not get to carry your rifle to work.

OK, now that I got that out of my chest lets look at some options.

Handguns: Revolver or Pistol?
Pistol ALL THE WAY! Yes, I saw the video of the guy that accurately emptied his S&W in � a second. I also saw the shooting range and the crowd behind him, watching the event. Can he shoot and reload that way if he is in his car, driving with one hand and shooting with the other, while a bunch of scum bags in another car are shooting at him? Hey, maybe he can. I know I can�t. Can you?

Generally speaking, the revolver is more difficult to master than the pistol. The double action is hard and it affects speed and accuracy. It can be done, but I found that pistols are easier, as did many shooters. Also, even though they seem to be more simple, revolvers are not as rugged as service pistols, the mechanisms that cycles the cylinder and cocks the hammer is both complicated and fragile compared to auto pistols.

Before anyone starts casting evil voodoo spells at me for insulting their prized S&W or Ruger: I own revolvers and like shooting them, I just don�t think they are the best option for self defense, and I see that everyone I talk to in my country who is worried about security as I am also chooses pistols. Quality pistols resist sand, mud and dirt in general better than revolvers, where a small pebble locked in the mechanism may render the revolver inoperable.

I personally had a problem with a new stainless steel Taurus Tracker .357 magnum. After shooting it a couple of times I reloaded it and shot all 7 rounds as fast as I could and when I tried to empty it, I found that the empties were stuck because they expanded because of the heat. I had to wait until the gun cooled a little so I could empty the gun. Stuff like this can get you killed, even more in a 7 round handgun. I once saw a man walk into a gun store wanting to trade his 357 magnum revolver for a 9mm high capacity pistol. He said he was driving when thugs from another car started shooting at him. He was chased for a few blocks. He said that he pulled his revolver and started shooting at them, and ran out of ammo real fast. He wanted more capacity and fast reloading. I could not agree with him more. Some will consider this �Spray and pray�, thinking that all rounds should hit the target and if some don�t then it means that you need more time at the range. Those same people will tell you that they intend to use bolt action rifles as defensive rifles, making each shot count, without ever missing their target, one shot one kill. I don�t agree with this. One shot one kill is ok for snipers, but the survivalist should have other alternatives.

I don�t see anything wrong with shooting four or five rounds at a chasing car. If those rounds make them think twice about their intentions, they are rounds well spent in my book, even if they don�t kill the attacker. Suppressive fire is possible if you have a high capacity pistol. I wouldn�t doubt on using such a tactic if it serves my purposes, or if it buys me time to get out of there. Also keep in mind that criminals are cowards and therefore attack in groups. The survivalist should be able to face more than just one attacker. Getting into a gunfight with two or three armed men while packing a 6 round revolver is rather hard to deal with. A high capacity pistol can load about 15 or 19 rounds, and that can certainly make a difference in a gunfight where you are outnumbered.

A forensic doctor that used to live in my neighborhood got killed last year. He was ambushed when he exited a restaurant by 5 or 6 men. Even though they did kill him he managed to kill 4 of them and severely injure another. He shot regularly and carried a Glock .40. I�m sure he was lucky but I also think that his choice of weapon was also important in the outcome. If anyone is wondering, people in my country that are serious about self defense carry Glocks. Those that don�t have the money for a Glock carry Bersas, FM High Powers or 1911 surplus .45s. At first I wasn�t sure about the Bersa, but once I tried them I saw that they are very descent guns. I now own two Bersas and am pleased with they performance.

The caliber choice calls for endless debate and it is not my intention here. Let�s just say that 9mm, 40S&W and 45ACP are the obvious choices. 40S&W seem to be the most adequate, both in FMJ and HP, while 9mm lacks some stopping power and hollow points should be used if possible. Though the 9mm lacks power compared to the 40S&W, it is more popular world wide, a factor to consider seriously when choosing a handgun for SHTF. Besides, 9mm can also be used in a number of carbines and SMG, another important fact to be considered.

SMGs and carbines chambered for 40S&W and .45 ACP are also available, but they at not nearly as popular as those chambered for 9mm. Whatever you choose keep 500 or better yet 1000 rounds of quality ammo for your handgun at all times. 100 rounds won�t last much if the crisis lasts long. Also consider that once the balloon goes up, governments tend to restrict guns and ammo.

Rifles
I previously stated that the urban survivalist will be using his handgun 90% of the time he needs to defend himself and family from attackers. I didn�t pull this figure out of thin air; it is quite accurate based on what happens here on daily basis, even a little optimistic. Cold harsh reality has shown us that most attacks occur when entering or exiting your home, when you are more vulnerable. Almost no one is stupid enough to try to enter a barred house with armed occupants. Believe me people; the gene pool will clean itself rather fast once the SHTF. So, is a rifle necessary? Of course it is! There is still that 10%, and that 10% can still ruin your day. And this percentage sky rockets if you intend to use that same rifle for putting meat on the table. If you have to settle with just one rifle, go for a semi auto. Ideally you should have a bolt action one and a semi auto rifle. A bolt action and a semiautomatic 308 would make a nice combination.

Whatever you choose, try to keep it within military calibers and military weapons if possible.

It may seem that I have something against bolt rifles but I don�t. I think they are fantastic weapons, but I think that semi autos are much better fighting weapons. The idea of �picking them out� 300 meters away with your bolt rifle, as they come in a row blowing whistles and firing warning rounds is laughable at best. Bolt rifles do have advantages over semi autos, accuracy not being the most important one. Bolt rifles such as Mausers last forever and are harder than rocks, THAT�S important. They are simple, easy to repair tools that will serve you (within their limitations of course) longer than any other weapon. For example, the coil spring on my Mauser 1891 safety broke into 3 separate parts, after almost 100 years of faithful service. I dug into my tool box and found a spring left over from a kitchen shelve door. I cut it approximately to the length of the previous spring, replaced it and the rifle was fixed. There are not many weapons that allow this. And it is a very valuable attribute once the SHTF and spare parts are no longer available.

Stick to common calibers, 223, 7.62x39mm, or 7,62x51 (308). 223 vs. 308? I�m not going there. If you prefer 223 because it has less recoil, it�s lighter, or you favor the AR rifle go ahead. If you think that 223 is more powerful than 7,62 sign up to Physics I.

Just remember what I said before, a survivalist is not a soldier serving in Iraq, and you don�t have the entire USMF to back you up. You are on your own. You are not going to pin your attackers down with a questionably effective round and wait until someone hits them with artillery.

About ARs� I wouldn�t trust my life to a rifle that has more versions than Rocky sequels� the way I see it, it means that the basic design was the problem and there is no solution. On AK � all has been said. The most popular rifle on the planet, and popular not because of politics, but because it works. It also fires an intermediate power, effective round, available world wide. SKS are also good, but I�d rather have removable magazines. Again, don�t use voodoo on me because I say I wouldn�t trust my life to a AR. If you keep your weapon clean, know its limitations and feel comfortable with it, go for it please. A couple of rounds of 223 will kill anyone just as well.

If you want a rifle that can do a little bit of everything relatively well, do yourself a favor and get either a M1A or a FAL in 7,62 (308) with a carbine length barrel. Preferably with a red dot scope and some kind of light mount. Leave full length barrels to hunters and bench rest shooters. Do your homework on both guns and you�ll see what I mean.

Choose 308 not because of the added range you can get out of it, but because of its power at all ranges, choose it because it turns cover into concealment. Think about all the possible cover material you can find in a city, like cars, trees, low walls and other structures. The 308 will go right through it, or destroy it after a few rounds. It�s a proven cartridge through out the years.

Shotguns.

Shotguns are good general purpose guns. The main advantage I see is the devastating stopping power and the ability to use special ammo, like slugs and less than lethal ammo. I�m not so sure about the role as an �inside house� gun. The muzzle blast is great and quick follow up are not easy, especially when adrenalin is pumping through your system or, even worse, when someone is shooting back at you.

Pistol caliber carbines and SMG.

If possible, I�d choose a SMG reduced to semi auto (only if necessary, of course, full auto selector is better if possible) or other kind of short, small, pistol caliber carbine.

The combination of a 9mm handgun and a 9mm carbine or SMG reduced to semi auto or full auto class III has lots of advantages in my book and is a fine combination.

Some think that full auto is a waste of ammo. I don�t think so, not if you know how to use your head, and use this feature wisely. If you can get a short barrel and collapsible stock, you�ll also have a weapon that can be hidden under a heavy coat. A red dot scope would enhance accuracy a lot. The advantage of having the same ammo for long and small arm is not to be taken lightly. From the logistical, survivalist point of you, this is one big thumbs up! Think about cowboys and Americans that lived in the west, they also knew the value of using the same ammo for rifle and handgun. They had single action handguns and lever action handguns chambered for the same ammo, the modern survivalist can have the same ammo for his auto pistol and his sub-rifle as well.

Some think that a pistol caliber long arm is just one big clumsy pistol or a rifle sized gun that delivers pistol power and accuracy. This is BS. Anyone that ever fired a pistol caliber rifle or SMG knows that they are much more accurate, hitting torso targets at 100 yards is easy, and a little more if you have a red dot scope. Also, SMGs can manage hot ammo specially made for such guns, much more powerful than the one for handguns. Even if you use regular handgun ammo, the added barrel length adds a few extra feet per second making it more powerful. Just check the information on boy armor. Body armor that is rated to stop 9mm, for example, is not rated to stop the same 9mm ammo out of a SMG or carbine, because the added speed will make that same round penetrate the vest. Anyway, +P ammo is more than enough power out of a SMG or carbine; you don�t have to go looking for special SMG ammunition.

If you can get full auto that�s one nice feature to have, not worth it if you are on a tight budget, but if you can get it, it may come in handy someday. Full auto SMG are giving police in my country a lot of headaches. A criminal with little or no training will put 3 or 4 cops armed with pistols and shotguns on their toes, just because of the sheer volume of fire these high capacity 9mm deliver. There was this case of a bad guy standing in front of a patrol car full of cops on a red light stop, pulling a 9mm SMG out of his coat and emptying it on full auto. The cops didn�t have a chance, he killed them all. The car looked like Swiss cheese with 40 9mm holes all over the vehicle.

SOUND SUPPRESSORS

All I�m going to say on this subject is: Have one if you can. That�s it. I�ll leave the rest of it to your imagination, don�t make me say it. Today it may seem like a �nice to have� feature� after the SHTF, it may be an �O God I�ve got to get a suppressor!!� feature.

I�d buy a good suppressor instead of an ultra high dollar scope like the SOG. Buy a good quality scope, but don�t spend a fortune on it, and use the rest of the money on a suppressor. If you are serious about preparing for SHTF, you�ll thank me one day; just trust me on this one. 9mm and 45 suppress quite well. Not as well as .22, but there is much more power on the big bore ammo. Combined with a full auto SMG, the possibilities are much greater. Sometimes it�s just better to go unnoticed, especially in a SHTF crisis.

BODY ARMOR

Dear God! Buy body armor PLEASE!! Its dirt cheep in USA. Preferably, get the police concealable kind (class II) then continue to work on it and get class III A military armor and some rifle plates, just as you do when you start buying guns. You�ll end up with 2 or 3 sets of armor which are great to have for family members and spares. Just so you know, I got so desperate about body armor I ordered it from USA through internet (bulletproofme.com), I ended up paying a total of nearly 600 USD for body armor that costs 200 USD in USA. Buy it while you still can. When the SHTF you�ll end up wearing it, believe me. I don�t wear mine all day long but I do wear it when I have to go some place dangerous, deal with people I don�t trust, or when I have to go teach Architecture Representation late at night, and must travel through a much dangerous road at 12 PM.

Ferfal

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

Bear in mind Ferfal is in Argentina. The FAL has a semi-legendary status in South America and thus so does the round it fires. It is a good weapon and the 7.62x51 is a good caliber. The main point to consider is there isn't a whole lot out there that is effective cover from the 7.62x39 either. On the other hand the 5.56x45 can be broken up or stopped by a lot of common things the other two will defeat. Concrete block for instance. Of course the Cuerno de Chivo has a reputation all its own down south too.

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

H,
Truer words have never been spoken for sure. As I said earlier, I've been rereading FerFals accounts on his website (ferfalblogspot.com) and one of the items he keeps going back to are the FAL's. I've owned a couple a long time ago. Great weapons for sure. Disassembly is a bioatch if you don't have a couple of special tools (take the long spring out and then just TRY and get it back in with your bare hands).

But the .30 caliber bullet it fires WITH AUTHORITY is why it is so beloved. As Ferfal says, it turns cover into concealment. Or swiss cheese.

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

*sigh*

Naturally I'm going disagree with everyone. I'll take the Simonov, the AK's less sexy stepsister. THey shoot the same round, but the SKS does it with better accuracy. I can carry more ammo with less weight on stripper clips. Parts and accessories are readily available, and it can accept the kind of abuse the typical ComBloc weapon must.

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

I was very skeptical of 223 till I shot my friends AR.
Here is a video of what it can do.
Warning it's very graphic.
http://s149.photobucket.com/player.s...fs=1&os=1&ap=1

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

Toxa - try that with a 5.45 AK and you should see very similar results.

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

Toxa,
This info was already posted. BY ME.

Note that the only problem with the 7.62x39 is they ONLY show FMJ. There are a lot of other 39 rounds, but they don't show wound channels of it, just of the FMJ.

http://goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?t=405116

Also, while that looks pretty good, it's ZIP if your targe is behind cover, which neither the 5.45 OR the 5.56 does much do.

The 7.62x39 turns cover into concealment by penetrating TWICE as far as either of those rounds.

Go look and learn.

Re: The Usefulness of the AK-47 as a Survival Rifle
 

walley i did read your post.
The 7.62x39 is a great round. i killed a 140lbs doe with sks. The bullet whent through the heart and tore it in two. it looked bad very bad. Bullet hit the botom part of it, looked like some one cut it with a chain saw and yes it was a fmj.
You rite about the power of the 7.62.
I was just trying to show what 223 did to that little piglet. i did not expected that at all.
P.S. piglet was a layon, in case some one was going to call peta on me. It whent to compost site right after.