BATTLE TIME: What would you choose?

  • Thread starter Thread starter PreserveFreedom
  • Start date Start date
P

PreserveFreedom

Guest
I am thinking af purchasing a good secondary semi rifle that would be good for riots or invasion on US soil. I already have a Mini 14. I have a few ideas on what I may get, but am not 100% sure. It needs to be more dependable than accurate. Should I go with something that is chambered in the same round as my Mini 14 or should I try 7.62x39? Maybe another? Should I consider a bayonette mount? Here are a few that come to mind...

AK-47

AK-74

AR-15

M1 Carbine

M1 Garand

Mini 30

SKS

I purposely listed them alphabetically as to not play favorites. I also left out the carbines chambered in common pistol cartridges, although they are a consideration as well. Any I missed? Any I should avoid? Any I should consider above the rest? As stated, dependability is my largest concern. Capacity is a concern as well. I'd really like something with 20 round or greater mags. I am real interested in what you all think!
 
re: Battle Rifles

I'll try first.

AK-47:
Advantages: Legendary reliability, cheap ammo (as low as $90 for 1000 rounds), dirt cheap 30 round magazines for as little as $5-10 each. Easy to field-strip with no small parts or screws to get lost or misplaced.
Disadvantages: Mediocre accuracy, not very attractive looking (like that really matters).

Prices start from about $250 for the Romanian SAR like I have to near $1000 for the Russian originals. I really like my AK as I think it offers the best balance of magazine capacity and caliber. Plus, it works!


AR-15:
Advantages: Very low recoil, lightweight bullets so more can be carried given weight limitations, very accurate, good sights, fairly easy to field-strip (pull out 2 disassembly pins and you separate the upper and lower receivers, then just pull bolt assembly out), magazines not as cheap as AK but still reasonable ($19 for Thermolds, $25-30 for GI demos, $50+ for Colt factories)

Disadvantages: Gas system supposedly lends to fouling and thus subsequent jamming problems, .223 round seems somewhat anemic compared to other 30 caliber rifles, prices start at $600 to well over $1000.

Note that I have had no problems with reliability with my Bushmaster AR in about 160 rounds. I really like the lightweight and design, but the caliber sort of turns me off next to a 30 caliber gun. That said, if I was "stuck" with an AR, I would not feel undergunned.


M1 Carbine:

Advantages: Very lightweight (about 5 lbs), cheap magazines ($10 for 15 rounders, $20 for 30 rounders), almost no recoil, good reliability (so far with 100 rounds), disassembly is like your Mini 14.

Disadvantages: Expensive ammo, difficult to find ammo sometimes, 30 carbine round is basically a 357 magnum in a 110 grain bullet.

Aside from the pistol-like cartridge it fires, I am so far a big fan of the M1 carbine due to its lightweight and controllability. However, because of the caliber, I would probably opt for a "real" battle rifle before this.


M1 Garand:

Advantages: Powerful round in 30-06, surprisingly low recoil, great lineage (I believe General Patton called it "the greatest battle implement ever devised".

Disadvantages: At 9 1/2 lbs it's no lightweight, hard to find cheap non-corrosive ammunition for it, the en-bloc loading system can ruin your day if your thumb gets caught in the bolt when putting in the clip.

I have only put about 40 rounds through mine, so I cannot fairly judge it. I like the round, but hauling that thing around would get pretty tiring and the 8 rounds it holds pales in comparison to the 30 round magazines of other rifles. But, considering it was good enough for our GI's in WWII, that should say a lot.


SKS:

Advantages: Same ammo as AK, good reliability, 20 and 30 round magazines are still availiable, uses stripper clip loading.

Disadvantages: Many come with fixed 10 round magazines and trying to change them can be a pain in the a$$.

Personally, while I like the gun, in my opinion, anything the SKS can do, the AK can do better.


I know you said you did not consider pistol caliber carbines, but how about a semi-auto UZI? I have one that takes 9 mm and 45 ACP and it is very reliable and easy to maintain (just unscrew barrel, take off top receiver cover, and pull out the bolt). It may not hit as hard, but hi-caps are still availiable and what could be more politically incorrect than an UZI?

I hope this helps, but I'm sure people far more knowledgable than me can do much better.
 
If you want something that will go bang every time you shoot it, get the AK. I have heard many testimonials that go somthing like, "...I would take the AK out and shoot it, and then throw it in my locker without cleaning it for a few months. When I came back the bolt was rusted shut. I literally kicked it open, took it out to the range and fed it 200 rounds without a hiccup..."
Personally I'd get the Mini 30 due to customer service being there if anything went wrong, but that's just me....
 
I don't have much experience/knowledge when it comes to FAL. What can you tell me about it?
 
Urban environment? Range is not an issue, seems to me--at least, not as I think of it in terms of over-200 yards. So, selective fire AK-47 critter seems real useful. More versatile than a shotgun, for the situation.

Were I here at home? I'm in a "very, very rural" location, so a deer rifle is as good as anything else, absent a need for a "real" machine gun. My next step up would be for the old Browning BAR. The BAR is the only full-auto that you can keep on target out at 500 yards.

:), Art
 
I thought about this or other scenarios for about 3 years, and learned about the guns in question before finally making a decision. I chose 3 weapons, the M1A, M14 first as my battle rifle. Why? After reading and watching shows about it, and test firing other weapons it just seemed like the obvious choice to me. I liked how it did in the Army's performance tests. I like the .308 cartridge. I like the magnitude of surplus parts. I also like the fact that it even still sees some use in the military.

I've had friends tell me that it's too heavy, and that you can't carry the same amount of ammo...
First, I've lugged it around all day and it wasn't all that heavy to me- plus if my life depended on it!!! But add a backpack full of food and supplies, yeah the weight might play a toll. My arguement to this is, drive the 4WD. I didn't plan on playing hike the USA anyway. A better option would be to 'hold the fort' here and stay with the food supply. Shooting from carpet with the M1A propped on the windowsill beats shooting from the mud covered with mosquitos. Yeah, the ammo is heavier. But that's what I like. It will also hit harder farther out. Most people I know don't have a sufficient supply of ammo to sustain them through any lengthy firefight anyway... we'd both run out.

Second, a shotgun for close encounters. The firepower and spread a shotgun delivers is nothing short of impressive. And anything that gets past these two and gets up close and personal will encounter #3 if I'm still alive.

.45 automatic. The reliability and proven effectiveness over nearly a century was enough to convince me. The thing saw 2 world wars, still other wars, and a number of other major conflicts. Enough vets swear by it that I think I can trust it to protect my tiny corner of the world.

My wife chooses the other-hand variety of weapons. The 9mm, the AR-15, and thinks grenades would be cool if she could get her hands on them.
 
A Romainian AK in 7.62X39 Hollow point cartriges. Cheap Reliable deadly and not so bad in the accuracy department ( Dont get Norinco/Mak 90 accuracy is terrible).
 
FAL vs AR vs M14 vs AK-47

Truly? You can have this argument all year long. IMHO it comes down to one big question, and the rest are preferences:

Do you want a 5.56 or a 7.62 (30 cal) rifle?

After that, you just have to pick what you like. For reasonably close ranges of an urban scenario, I imagine that the AR with 5.56 and a lot of ammo for a given weight is a good way to go. Low recoil is a plus, too.

The .30 caliber guns (FAL, M14, etc) give you more oomph for longer range and the possibility of shooting things other than bipeds (well...not to say you can't take down a deer with a .223), but are heavier and the ammo weighs more as well.

I'm no expert, and I'm talking in generalizations. http://www.ar15.com ak47.com and http://www.fnfal.com are good sources. If you have a quality weapon (clone or real deal) in any of those configurations and know how to use it, you can't go wrong.

Mike
 
M96!

Another option in .223 is Robinson Armament's M96 Expeditionary Rifle & Carbine. These are very similar to the Stoner 63 design.

Robarm also builds VEPR and VEPR II AK-type rifles in .223, 7.62x39, and .308.

My choice would be a FAL or an M96, depending on what I was shooting at, at what ranges, and where. If I was going to have to hunt game to eat, I'd definitely choose the FAL, since we are littered with elk in the foothills out here.

-z
 
i would pick the rifle that utilizes ammo, magazines,
& parts that are available in the theater of operation

AR15 the unofficial militia arm of the US Citizen
 
I'm with dZ

If you were to ever run into some other American force they can maybe resupply you with mags/ammo/parts etc. for an AR series. Sure it may not be in a caliber that can drop large game easily but to me it seems the most practical. Also keep in mind that you can carry a helluva lot more .223 than .308 for the same weight. I have an AR (Bushmaster DCM) and a Norinco NHM91 and I would take the AR any day.
 
in an urban environment (i don't think it's possible, by definition, to have a riot in a rural setting), <200yds, but carrying ammo, 300rds (?), water etc. i'd carry a ak-74 for the reliability of the 47 with the lighter weight of the 5.45x39mm ammo and improved accuracy and controlability.

gi joe - the one thing a sks does better than an ak is scatter better...you can buy several and scatter :D them about the house for when you want to grab one to investigate that noise outside :)
 
ronin308

"Also keep in mind that you can carry a helluva lot more .223 than .308 for the same weight." About twice as much the difference in the weight of the rifles (unloaded)is less than a pound.

If you shoot straight and hit where you aim out to 800m then carrying more ammo isn't that necessary is it?. "weight of shot" matter allot if you can hit the target. Last time I checked didn't the US still field a machine gun in 7.62 NATO? or did the M60 get removed from the TO&E of most combat arms units?

More bullets or one that gets the job done in one shot.. Easy choice if you shot well, other wise with a 5.56 or X39 you get twice the chances. However if you are in an Urban enviroment than more rounds might be in order. Fighting in an urban enviroment has been known to require lots of ammo.
 
Alan B...okay I'm not too sure what you're saying...are you for the .223 or .308 as the first choice? I'd say that a shot a 800m with a battle rifle on a hostile is quite a difficult one! I'd say that I have an accurate rifle (Bushmaster DCM) and that I'm a fairly good shot..but 800m w/ a peep sight? That doesn't seem like a practical distance for a battle rifle. And you made reference to a "5.56x39" round, do you mean the 5.56x45mm or the 5.45x39mm? Please clarify.

Thanks
 
f117943.jpg
 
ronin308, many battle rifles, as well as the M16/AR-15, have sights regulated out to or past 800 meters. While one can hardly expect precision accuracy out there, it is possible to hit "man sized" targets. My range has a 14" square gong at 600 yards which I can hit using the iron sights on my AR or FAL.

Also, I believe AlanB said, ".223 or X39", referring to either .223 or 7.62x39, not implying some 5.56x39 round.

-z
 
Ronin, loose the current inventory and get an M96 for .223 work and an FN for .308 work, the controls on both are virtually identical, both use a gas piston/adjustable, both take down easily, mag availability is better than Ruger's, both are amazingly reliable and accurate. If the SHTF, then most of the available ammo will be .308 and .223 as police and military will generally utilize Nato standard stuff.If the M96 is not an option then get an AR15, plusses are mags, spare parts, same ammo as military, with that combo you should feel prety secure. Just my not so humble, yet paranoid opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top