AK for a survival weapon

As long as you've an adequate supply of ammo, no reason...

The .223 version (AK 74) might be a better choice since that is readily available in th U.S.
 
Yep, all of it's flaws as a battle carbine apply. Bad ergonomics primarily. Limited range/penetration of the cartridge. According to Dr. Fackler it has poor wound ballistics (7.62mm ball that is). Durable, dependable, reliable, cheap/easy to produce (AKM-stamped receiver), well suited to illiterate peasants and soviet battle tactics yes to all of the above, but not what I would choose. Will it do? It will if you will but it is not the best tool for the job no matter how you define survival.
 
Plenty of people have been killed deader'n Elvis with 7.62x39 ball ammo. The rifle is cheaper than an AR by far, virtually indestructible, fairly accurate even though it is not a match rifle, and extremely easy to operate and fix.
 
Bad ergonomics. The buttstock is too short and comb too low for most shooters.

7.62X39mm ammo is sufficient to 300 yds. Cheap. Can be used for hunting medium game. Decent round for defense. Lots of battles won with this round.

Sort of depends on what you're "surviving." The gun is only useful if you have ammo. As a utility gun for the boonies it's fine. Armed combat in most conditions, it's fine too.

Defense against large animals . . . starts to get marginal. But you could do a lot worse. And the price is right. I'd get one while you still can.
 
The AK-47 is the perfect medium range rifle (Zero-300 yards). It is probably the most reliable rifle for any climate and is combat accurate. 3" grouping at 100 yards and easily hit mansized targets out to 300 yards. As far as ergonomics is concerned it all depends on what type stock you have it fitted with. Russian and Chi-com stock are very different and so is Bulgarian. If you dont like the way the stock fits you, buy a stock that does. There are many U.S made stocks for the AK that fit a larger man perfectly.

I really like the AR and M1A but if I had to have one rifle to drag through heck and high water, it would be a AK system rifle.

anyone that feels that the 7.62X39 rounds is not effective needs to visit TFI website. Its perfect for its intended range.
 
lendringser, a lot of people have been killed deader'n elvis with a .22, doesn't mean it's a great choice for an all arround rifle. I agree that it can do but it isn't a great choice. The 7.62x39 is very close to the 30-30 ballisticaly and most experienced shooters will agree that anything past 175 yards is streaching things a bit. My understanding of it's shortcomings are from Dr. Martin Fackler, the Army's wound ballistics guru and are based on ball ammunition (it's cheap and that is what most folks have, russian HP won't expand in my experience). In the category of ergonomics, I don't mind a short stock, I prefer it to some extent. Take a rifle with a stock of the 'perfect' length then put on a bulky winter coat and try a snap shot, chances are the butt will drag on your coat and and you will not get the proper stock weld. What really bothers me is the safety that few people, if any, can operate easily. The slow awkward mag change and poor sights.

Overall, for a squad or more of mediocre troops, it's ok. It's just not for me.

Most important is Bullfrog's definition of survival.
 
No flaws in AK as a survival weapon. It's my understanding that when somebody survives, there is no time or opportunity to shave
the face or clean the weapon, no toilet paper and stuff, and ergonomics or army's guru conclusions on wound ballistics are as important as the last year snow. The only thing which counts is the total reliability and mechanical strength of the weapon, and AK is perfectly O.K. in this regard...
 
Very well said... Having a feel good rifle and being able to shoot buttons at 100 yards doesnt mean squat in a combat sitiation. What you need is ammo and a rifle that is reliable in whatever environment you subject it to. I would be willing to bet that no other rifle could stand the same punishment that I have already put my AK through 10 times over.

Ahhh! It feels good to have my screen name back.

Thanks again Rich.

FF
 
For a general survival rifle the majority of AKs are not accurate enough or versatile enough to suit me. Their great for what they were designed for, but there's so many better choices for a survival rifle. If I found myself stranded in interior Alaska for instance, I wouldn't choose an AK as my survival rifle. If I was trying to protect the homestead from marauding bands of drug crazed zombie bikers, the AK would be high on my list.
 
Oris

I am a bit confused, from your post I can only conclude that you are sold on anecdotal evidence that is refuted by science and, the experience of a medical doctor who is widely concidered the man to ask concerning terminal ballistics (and a doctor with a few years experience as a field surgeon in Vietnam). If you view the ability to operate your weapon under stress and time constraints as useful as last years snow then I question your objectivity. If the only thing that truly counts is the total reliability and mechanical strength of the weapon I would suggest the Martini-Henry rifle. As a falling block it has far less to break and greater mechanical strength and reliability than a repeater of any kind. If wound ballistics means nothing to you it can even be had in .22lr so you can carry copious quantitys of ammunition. I don't mean to piss in anyones pond, if your AK is your favorite pet then fine. As I said it will do, but it has its flaws. That was the question asked and the question I answered. Every chioce involves a tradeoff and limitations. In this case we have size, weight, cost, ease of use, reliability, avalibility of parts, availibility of ammunition, cost of same, range, power, accuracy, legality(for you California types), Etc... That is why I asked how survival was defined by the original poster. I don't want to start a flame war I would just like to discuss things objectively. Objective argument is fine subjective argument is counterproductive.
 
Jake,

With all my respect, you're trying to make things look too complicated. The question was if AK (and not Henry-Martini or 2x4)
has any flaws as a survival rifle. I said:

1. no flaws (sorry, was just giving my sincere non-guru opinion)
2. survival is probably no fun (for some reason it seems that way)
3. AK is reliable and strong (opposite to "unreliable and weak")

I do not think you have any reason to be confused, my friend.
 
This wound ballistic thing is very funny. Are there bullets that do a better job than the 7.62x39? Sure there are, but we are talking about a 30 cal round fired at targets under 300 yards. The only down side to the 7.62 is that it does not fragment like other combat rounds. Anyone that is hit with a 7.62 is not going to be a threat even if you hit them in a non vital area. What it comes down to is this. If you need a rifle to fire at Men or average sized game within 300 yards for surival, the AK is probably the best for that. If you need to hit targets beyond 300 yards then I'd choose something else. The AK is not my favorite rifle, the M1A is. In a survival situation I would leave the M1A behind.

To the guys that say that the Ak is not accurate: What distance are you talking about and what targets are you thinking of?
 
I don't know what that guy Jake is saying.......

Nevertheless, let me give you my take on it. 7.62x39mm is a fine round. If it is similar to a 30/30 then that's great because a 30/30 is plenty powerful enough to bring down a person. Its also the #1 deer rifle, which tells me that the AK-47 would be a great deer rifle as well (with proper ammo).

I have many rifles. I have AK's chambered for 7.62x39mm. I have an AK chambered for .223 cal. I have a Bushmater. I have a 12 guage. If I was going into a total survival situation where I had to both hunt game and defend myself the AK-47 would be the clear winner. I'd pick my Vepr II because it has a long 20 inch barrel which will maximize accuracy, velocity, and fire power.

For CQB, I'd pick my SAR-3. Its short butt stock, light weight frame, low recoil, and great reliability make it perfect for CQB. It is accurate ENOUGH in that type of situation.

Still if I could have ANY gun in the world for an "all around" type situation, I'd probably pick either an M-14 or a FAL. Just because they are reliable, and use a good powerful ammo.

Still there is NO reason not have an AK. Go buy yourself a WASR-10 or a SAR-1. You can still buy cheap mags and cheap ammo for it. It makes a great addition to everyone's war chest. Nomatter what anybody says the AK is plenty powerful enough to kill someone. I've always been a bit leary of Fackler's data as well. The guy worked for the Army. The Army isn't usually very critical of its own weapon systems. They wouldn't even admit that the M-16 had any problems during Vietnam. I don't trust its studies and would like to see independent varification.



-SS
 
I guess I am a little confused over your definition of "survival". My immediate thought was someone needing a rifle to survive in the woods or wilderness under adverse conditions where your primary objective is food procurment. If that's the case then I can think of a hundred rifles more practical than an AK. If your scenario is one of those end of the world, Red Dawn, Mad Max fantasies, then the AK-47 is just fine. Don't care much for the sights, but that's just personal preference.
 
One of the things a survival rifle must be is durable and reliable, because it may have to suffer great abuse and recieve less than TLC in its upkeep. The AKM will thrive under conditons that will turn an M-16/AR-15 into a pile of useless scrap metal. So the stocks to shor, quit bitchin and change it if it bothers you. The magazines unlike the AR, alloy job, is all steel and very durable. The AKM can also be had in a .223 version if you should desire one. As good as the AKM is, it is not my first choice, if I could have but one rifle in a survival situation, it would be an M-14/M-1A with an adaquate spare part kit, which all weapons should have.

7th
 
Fantasy?

If your scenario is one of those end of the world, Red Dawn, Mad Max fantasies
Click to expand...

I was (for a few months) assigned to Charlie company, 1 Bn, 11th SFG(A) out of Ft. ???? BRAIN FADE! Sorry, lost it. California, anyway.

Our summer games scenario was almost identical to the script for Red Dawn. (Years before the movie.) Why that scenario? Because it was considered to be a very realistic scenario by the intel types.

Still is. Just change the language of the invader.

I don't swallow it hook line and sinker, but I do pay attention when pros take something seriously.

Of course, someone who talked to a cab driver in Bejing probably knows more than the pros. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top