Mini 14, Bushmaster or Kalashnikov...which makes the most sense for all around survival weapon?

reply to post by PrepareForTheWorst


I have to agree with you heartily. If I could pick only one weapon it would be that Ruger, and in 22LR. Used to be able to buy a brick of .22LRs for $16.00. Yeah. I'm old.

BTW, I love your avatar. Perfect!

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.

reply to post by BlackOps719
I grew up coyote hunting with my dads mini-14, and currently own one of my own. It is a very well designed weapon, and are very reliable. I would choose it over the other two because A: 7.62 ammo will become scarce and then non-existant after TSHTF, and B: the ar-15's have a flaw in the design that unless you know them inside and out, and completely dis-assemble them for cleaning then they wear out fast. Unless you want to pay about $2000 dollars for one with the gas piston system. If you like the feel of an ar-15 then you can get a stock from Tapco that has the same feel and balance for a hundred bucks. For what you would pay for an ar-15 you can buy a mini-14, that stock, a bunch of thirty round mags, and a lot of ammo!

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]

reply to post by angryamerican
I have shot several mini-14's and never had one jam.

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)

reply to post by BlackOps719


Bushmaster Carbon 15 model 4. You can get one for under $1,000. I would rather have it so that I could chamber the weapon in either a 6.5mm grendel or 6.8mm SPC and switch back to 5.56mm when needed.

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.

reply to post by Anuubis


Glad to hear you have had good luck with the jamming issue. I how ever have not been that lucky. In my opinion its because we use cheap ammo. The cheapest we can find.

We shoot most or our guns a lot. The only one that doesn't get used on a regular basis is the British 303. Ammo is getting real hard to find and very expensive when you do find it. Hope fully at the end of this year I will be able to afford my reloading equipment
. Cheaper to do it myself and I will only buy the good powder.

As stated thow on the jamming it only happens when were shooting as fast as we can. My mine's are very old have seen thousands of rounds Ime thinking there showing there age.

Not sure on this I may be confusing it with the 10/22 but I seem to recall that the older ones had the jamming problem on rapid fire wich was taken care of on the newer models. Funny thing is my 10/22's very seldom jam.

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]

74 ammo, magazines and parts are about 25% higher across the board, and the ammo could become very hard to get.

The bulgy is a good choice. It will go up in value.

I see the Norincos have sky rocketed to two grand. The Maks are even turning 7-8 hundred now. Norinco produced a superior product. Its a shame they got in trouble and lost the right to import.

If you just want a shooter this is about the best mix of features vs price. That scope rail already installed is a hundred dollars of misery you don't have to go though from the begining. G2 trigger group, etc It also defeats some of the barrel climb problem by having the barrel on the same plane as the stock, like an AR.

www.atlanticfirearms.com...

By the way you want a double hook trigger group. Better trigger set overall and won't wear offcenter.

[edit on 25-7-2008 by Illahee]

A lot of folks just buy this one for 4 bones. Its cheap, tinny, and was modified from single stack mags to accept AK mags. If you don't care about fit and finish and just want a worker for the rack its hard to go wrong. They say there are just 1 or two more years supply on semi Aks in the US. If the build continue the prices will be high.

www.aimsurplus.com...

[edit on 25-7-2008 by Illahee]

reply to post by angryamerican
Another weapon i've never had jam on me are 10/22's. In my mini-14's i've always shot good ammo, and my dads had seen about 12,000 rounds between me and my brother. It never jammed. My 10/22 will take any ammo and not jam, but i custom built it from just the reciever to a tack driver.

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.

reply to post by LordBaskettIV
The Savage model 111 is a lot cheaper and more reliable than the Winchester 70 or the Remington 700. My Savage will put 5 in a quarter at 100 yards with Hornady 165 grain SST's. I've never shot reloads through it so i don't know how accurate it is with them. But with the groups i get with the Hornady's, i'm not to worried.

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.