Originally posted by argentus
Used to be able to buy a brick of .22LRs for $16.00.

A few months ago I could buy 500 rounds of .22LR for $10, right now a brick will cost you $18. However, when 20 rounds of .223 costs $10 it doesn't seem so bad!

Allow me to pile on a bit...

I'm not the most experienced guy here by any stretch, but if we're talking about a rough and tumble survival weapon, I'd reach for a Kalishnikov before anything else with moving parts.

As a previous poster said; bury all three in the swamp for a week, then dig them all out and see which one stops the Bad Guy. That's the one you pick. If it's SitX, and my family's arse is on the line, I want the weapon that's going to fire every single time I pull the trigger. =)

Im ex-military i have fired many weapons and have chosen the AK,
its very reliable, mines made by arsenal out of nevada very high dollar
but you can find a nice priced one at atlanticfirearms.com
my friend who is in frst group is carrying an AR-15 he is on the border of
Iraq/Iran, the AR is lighter than the AK. well to each is own. but my AR
in Iraq failed a few times, but i found 3 AKs over there that were filthy and rusted but still worked better than my AR, plus i can shoot threw schools
with the AK, my AR would not. So to protect my family i have the AK
and a dan wesson 357 revolver for a side arm, but you might consider
a glock 9mm for the pistol, also good weapon. When it comes down to it
you have to be able to handle the weapon or it is no good to you, keep
this in mind i have practiced with both the AK and 357 revolver therefore
i am pfoficient in both the weapon should feel good in your hands but still
have sufficient stopping power.

good luck killer.

I have had experience with all 3 of those choices. The ar-15 is the only one you listed capable of MOA accuracy.

That means hitting what you are aimed at within 1" at 100yds. I have a heavy barrel ar- that shoots 3 1/2" groups at 500 meters.


Get an ar.

I have lots of experience with the mini's. Dead on accurate in mine or even my wife and childrens hand. Never had one fail on me, and Ive owned minis as far back as I can remember.

Tend to jam when you spay and prey, but in all honestly if your spraying and preying it better be just to see how quickly you can knock down all the soda cans. If your going for looks alone the mini is defiantly the one. In my opinion it just looks mean right out of the box.

In my opinion the Mini is the way to go.

[edit on 24-7-2008 by angryamerican]

Mini-14 has a very quastionable reputation out here. Its known as sligthly less accurate than other rifles in the category (AKs, Sakos, ARs, SIGs) and slightly unreliable.

What do people consider an accurate rifle? Sub MOA is not attainable by 99% stock rifles, including ARs. Nevermind what their owners claim.

I know only one manufacturer that promises sub 0.8 MOAs for an AR, but he rejects roughly 30% of the parts he gets from top end manufacturers. (his average is 0.65 MOAs)

You might also wanna consider the sks.

They are alot like the ak.

But they are cheaper, just as reliable and rugged, more accurate(well with my experince anyways), and a #load of aftermarket parts for them.

So you might also wanna consider that also.

Originally posted by BlackOps719
So what is the significant differences between the AK47 and the 74, apart from one firing 7.62 and the other firing a smaller round?

The 74 is supposed to be an upgrade to the prior Vietnam era model, but has anyone seen an increase in accuracy with the smaller load? Seems to be the same basic style and features, Im just wondering what the reall fundamental improvements are.

I've fired both. For me, the 47 has too much of a kick. The 74 is a lot, and I mean a lot easier to handle. I was able to hit a target at 400 yards with it, and I'm not a very good shot to begin with. Theoretically the accuracies should not differ much for the two models, but in practice I think they do. The 74 has a larger muzzle velocity, I believe.

I used to be able to strip the 47 in about 10 seconds and then clean it. Not sure it can be done with the other models you mentioned.


[edit on 25-7-2008 by buddhasystem]

Wouldn't a bolt action rifle be better, if one was looking for high amounts of accuracy? I love my 10/22T, but its still just a semi-auto. The best rifle I have ever shot was a Remington 700 bolt action with a heavy barrel. It shot five rounds into the same hole at 300 yds with hand loaded ammo to better match the rifle.

I would think using an AK/M-4/ect would be more of a close combat rifle, ie somewhere within 100yds or less. Who cares what it does outside that range, a non semi-auto would be better at that point, and far more reliable. A good survial set up would be 3 guns, a .22lr, a .223, and a .308 or larger. I don't know any gun that would replace the need of 3 guns except a Dragunov sniper rifle, but you would still need a .22 of some sort for the smaller game.

Anyway, whatever you get, make sure you shoot it alot.Practice makes perfect.Also, keep in mind that a .22lr mimicks a .308 at twice the distance as far as ballistics in the air goes. So make sure you have a 22 just to keep up on marksmanship without breaking the bank.

Originally posted by LordBaskettIV
Wouldn't a bolt action rifle be better, if one was looking for high amounts of accuracy?

Started a new thread on this very topic. There are some lee enfield rifles at aim for less than two bones that are chambered for .308 NATO not a bad price on those at all.

Ok I wasn't totally fair in suggesting the ar, the AK is better for CQB because of it's more potent 7.62x39mm caliber. And the AK is much better for reliability. but not extremely accurate. You can expect to shoot a 2-4" group at 100 yards. Beyond 400 yards you are wasting ammo with an AK. At 500 yards you can still make a headshot with an AR.