Basic Guns Part 4: Rifles

So far we have a quality .38, a pump shotgun and a .22 rifle. The big boy comes last. A centerfire rifle is really the way to go for hunting medium to large game at anything but under 50 meter jungle/ brush distances. Yes I know you can sling slugs a bit further than that to 100m or so but lets not get distracted. Between it's ability to reach out and touch somebody and go through soft body armor/ walls/ cars a rifle is the best option for fighting people outside of CQB range.

The rifle is last because they are a pretty specific tool and tend to be fairly expensive to buy and equip. Also in most realistic situations you can get by fine with a shotgun. Anyway here we go.

The cheapest option is a Mosin Nagant. These are really the cheapest rifles out there. Pretty much the worst of the WWI-WWII bolt guns. Fit and finish is terrible and ergonomics equally so. While theoretically capable of decent accuracy their abysmal sights make turning that into reality an iffy proposition. Honestly the only strong point of the Mosin is availability at cheap prices because the Commies made approximately eleven billion of the things then went broke and sold them. To be fair these guns are pretty rugged and reasonably reliable. Guns made to be used by illiterate teenage conscripts need to be. Some spare parts are available and the guns are cheap enough to potentially have spares (though that leaves the point of this series a bit). In my area you can get a Mosin for $150. If I recall some online seller (Aim or J&G I can't recall) was selling them for $129 a couple weeks back which probably equates to $160 all said and done at your local FFL.

Though it's spiked recently in general 440 round spam cans of old commie ammo are available at good prices. Since it hasn't been made in forever I suspect that surplus ammo will eventually dry up. Granted some modern commercial ammo is available it just eliminates the ammo cost advantage of these guns.

The Mosin is definitely the cheapest option. For a person who wants a rifle in case something happens but doesn't do much with it in the meantime (granted not training is a bad plan but I'm being real here, some folks do this) has a good pump shotgun for home defense, as a Mosin is 5 feet long, weights 35 pounds and is bolt fed from a 5 round magazine, that's on a really tight budget a Mosin and a few spam cans of ammo is a valid option.

For not that much more money in the $300-400ish range you get a lot more options. Bolt action deer rifles (go .308 or 30'06) and lever action 30-30's are available in this range. As to specific models I would get one of the many common manufacturer/ common model rifles like the Winchester model 70, Remington model 700, Ruger model 77 or the Savage 110. Sure I missed some but you get the idea. For lever guns I will focus on the Winchester model 94 and Marlin 336 both chambered in 30-30 Winchester. Mossberg has stepped up to the plate with a good entry but it's too soon to tell and parts availability could be problematic. The Rossi/ Puma type lever guns are questionable when it comes to ruggedness/ reliability and long term support in my opinion.

(Note I lumped the various MILSURP rifles such as the Enfield, Springfield and various Mausers into this group as it better represents the cost to purchase and equip those weapons. )

Both have plus sides and minuses. I discussed these recently in another post. To recap: Both are good options. The first question I have would be about the range you are looking at taking game from. If you plan to take shots past 125-150 meters I would go with the '06. On the other hand if closer shots in the 30-100 meter range are the norm and you want a light fast brush gun a 30-30 is hard to beat. My second question would be about what this rifles secondary goal(s) are. If you want a long range/ 'precision' rifle the obvious answer is the '06. On the other side of the coin the 30-30 is a solid choice (for non mag fed military rifles) for up close defensive stuff and makes a great "truck gun". Third would be what other rifles do you own; sort of dovetailing with the last question if this gun needs to fill another niche that must be considered.

Personally if I had to get by with one gun that was not magazine fed (AK, AR, PTR-91, etc) it would be a lever action 30-30. That's just me. Many folks would say the same about a bolt action .308/ 30'06 which is fine too.  As to models the Marlin might arguably have some advantages and is cheaper than the Winchester. That being said I prefer the Winchester 94. They feel better in my hand and nothing says 'Merica like a Winchester lever action rifle.

While I prefer a good deer rifle or a lever gun to a Mosin the cost to feed your rifle is a consideration. One of the downsides of both these options is ammo is expensive. 30'06 ammo is available cheaper MILSURP if you jump through the CMP hoops but otherwise we're looking 75 cents to a buck a round.

As to equipping whatever rifle you decide to buy:
Rifle
Sling
Cleaning Kit
Something to carry ammo
500 rounds of ammo *minimum*

I say this to be realistic for folks who go the deer rifle or lever gun routes. Somebody on a basic gun budget isn't going to buy 3,000 rounds of 30-30 ammo at .75c-$1 per round. Honestly I like a lot more ammo but this is really more of a regional disaster/ economic collapse type setup than Mad Max or fighting a war. If I had this setup in a bad scenario I would only use the rifle for defense or dangerous game. Hunting would be done predominantly with the .22 rifle. 

 Thoughts?

Reader Question: 30'06 or 30-30 Winchester

Ryan,
Since you mentioned 30'06, I was wondering what you've found to be the best "configuration" as you said you'd probably get one in a different configuration.
I've got a lot of basis covered firearms wise but a large caliber (i.e. .270 on up) is missing besides an old Pattern 14 .303 Enfield which I've been wanting to sell lately to get a Bolt '06 with open sights and also put a scope on it or a .30-30. I'm looking for a utility rifle that can drop just about anything up to an elk. I was also considering most compatible and common which led me to an old Winchester, Rem, or Ruger '06 with back up sights or an old .30-30.
$400 is my rough price range and I'm from Oregon/Northwest. Thoughts at all? What do you like? Thanks!
-Jack

 Ryan: Hi Jack, I had a sporterized 1903 with peep sights. Fine gun or whatever but not quite what I want. Personally it will be replaced by a modern bolt action rifle designed to be scoped, probably a Savage 110 chambered in 30'06 or maybe .308. That's just me. My goal is to build a budget precision rifle that can be used for hunting if needed/ desired.

As to your question. Both are good options. The first question I have would be about the range you are looking at taking game from. If you plan to take shots past 125-150 meters I would go with the '06. On the other hand if closer shots in the 30-100 meter range are the norm and you want a light fast brush gun a 30-30 is hard to beat. My second question would be about what this rifles secondary goal(s) are. If you want a long range/ 'precision' rifle the obvious answer is the '06. On the other side of the coin the 30-30 is a solid choice (for non mag fed military rifles) for up close defensive stuff and makes a great "truck gun". Third would be what other rifles do you own; sort of dovetailing with the last question if this gun needs to fill another niche that must be considered.

Sorry that isn't a clean cut answer but the questions should give you a pretty good idea of which gun might best serve your needs. I will talk a bit more about these rifles on Friday with the next installment of the basic guns series.

RE: Basic Guns Part 3: Shotguns

My recent post on shotguns in the basic guns series drew a comment worth replying to. It already got a pretty good response but I'll take a shot at it also. Here it is, I will reply after each piece in italics.
"Let's see...
* Heavy, bulky ammo
How much ammo do you plan on carrying? For a normal home defense or siting on the porch after a Hurricane type scenario I'd be quite comfortable with what's in/ on the gun and 40-50 rounds which is not excessively heavy. True 150-250 rounds of buckshot or slugs would weight a lot but if you're trying to do that it's likely not a problem that can be solved with a shotgun anyway.
* Short range
Short range in comparison to what? [This is a systemic issue of the comment. Nothing is defined or compared to another alternative.]  Figure buckshot is good to 30 meters or so which covers probably 90% of home defense type situations. Slugs out of a standard open cylinder barrel with a bead sight are good to about 100m (if the operator does his part) which probably covers 99.9% of civilian defensive situations.
* Ineffective against even the cheapest armor
So are all but a few oddball pistols but you don't see folks running away from 9mm, .357mag, .40 and .45. The comment to use slugs is valid. Then again rifle plates that stop everything up to 30'06 AP are common place and can be purchased for a few hundred dollars. So that thinking eliminates the advantage of .223, 7.62x39 and .308 also; you would really have to move to .338 Lapua or other anti materiel type rifle that will either blow through a plate or create so much energy it would do a person in through blunt force trauma. Honestly while Goblins wearing body armor is a valid worst case scenario for home defense the real odds of it happening are probably pretty low. If a round to the plate does not do somebody in (or you see vests) transition to 'hips and heads'. In plain English if you suspect folks might have vests shoot them in the hips and then in the face. Heck given the slim but reasonable likelihood that somebody has a vest these days starting with 'hips and heads' isn't a terrible idea.
* Crap sights
Honestly I have never really had an issue with the plain old single bead. Given the realistic ranges for employing a shotgun I find them sufficient. Rifle sights, ghost ring sights or a red dot are all better and valid options but they cost money.
* Crap accuracy
If a person cannot use a serviceable shotgun to accomplish realistic shotgun tasks the issue lie in the operator not the weapons system.
* Awkward, slow reloads
 In comparison to a modern magazine fed weapon that holds 20-30+ rounds reloads are slow and awkward. On the other hand if we are comparing it to a bolt or lever action rifle I would call it a wash.
So why would I want to buy a shotgun again?"

Further commentary:  The systemic problem with this comment is that it does not compare shotguns to another option by weak point or to propose another weapons system as an all around better option. Maybe I am being too hard on this but it has it's been pounded into my head that you bring up a problem AND A BETTER OPTION.

I am a pretty harsh critic of shotguns for home defense. This guy would take an AR/ AK/ Mini 14/ Whatever over a shotgun every day of the week and twice on Sunday. $1,500 Project AR with a $500 optic blows the old 870 out of the water in about every possible way. A Mercedes or Porche SUV blows my Asian SUV out of the water and $120 a bottle Scotch beats $18 a bottle stuff. The problem is that a comparison between them that does not consider economics is invalid. 

At the time of this writing AR's run $1,200 for low end guns. AK's are running almost a grand for low end ones.  A quality shotgun costs 1/4 to 1/3rd of either. Many people are priced out of modern defensive rifles these days but any semi functional adult can pull together $250-300ish to get a good pump shotgun. Also today they are still widely available both in stores and on the private market. Think I've beat the cost thing to death.

The other big benefit of a shotgun is versatility. A rifle can do some things better than a shotgun but there are many things a shotgun can do that a rifle fails completely at. As discussed before any sort of jack of all trades is not the master of any but in this scenario a gun that does a lot of things acceptably is very useful.

Instead of comparing a shotgun to rifles that cost 3-4x as much ones in the same range might be a more equitable comparison. We will get to rifles later but the playing field between bolt action deer rifles, lever guns and old milsurp Mosin Nagants and the shotgun is a whole lot more level.  A reasonable person could choose to go rifle first then shotgun down the road but it's still important to compare apples to apples.

Considering this is the Basic Guns series and we are talking about affordable but still reliable guns that will fill a lot of roles I consider the shotgun worthwhile. 

Thoughts?

Merry Christmas To All!

Our Christmas got off to a great start with Walker sleeping in until 8 o'clock in the morning. Kiddo was mad that Santa was in our house (he does not like the man after a bad mall experience) and after finding a couple matchbox cars in his stocking decided he was done opening gifts. We helped him with the rest and then had some breakfast.

Kiddo got a cowboy outfit for Christmas and somehow it ended up on the dog. Dog is not amused by this. Anyway the picture came out well and we had to share it. Don't worry Dog is being well rewarded with all manner of (dog safe) people food so his Christmas is still going well.

Wifey got a nice designer wallet, a wool coat and some end tables. I got a CMMG Conversion kit for the AR and an IPOD Nano.

After breakfast we have just been hanging out. Kiddo played with toys and generally was himself and is down for a nap. Dog is sleeping. We are relaxing before dinner and doing some light snacking.

I pulled out my rifle (calling it Project AR Upgrade is getting old) and fiddled with the conversion kit a bit. It is a nicely manufactured little piece of kit. "Installation" is stupidly easy. Just take out the bolt and put in the kit bolt then insert a .22 magazine. I'm looking forward to testing it out at the range later this week. Will check the darn schedule this time though.

To me there are two real roles for this kit. As a survival toon and for affordable short range training with the AR. For me being able to carry a little bolt with a mag or two and shoot .22 ammo through my rifle would be really nice. A great option if I have to travel light for whatever reason. Secondly I can't afford to shoot anywhere near as much .223 as would be ideal but a trip to the range with this sucker won't break the bank.

For me two criteria will determine if this bolt is a useful tool or a little gimmick decent accuracy and OK reliability. What I want to be able to do is shoot .22lr accurately at 25, or ideally 50 meters, sufficiently to do SRM, plink and if need put some meat into the pot. Don't need or expect it to win small bore competitions, just to be accurate enough to fill a legitimate role. As to reliability I am a bit less concerned. So long as it doesn't jam every third round or in complicated unpleasant ways that make the whole thing a hassle I am prepared for a few eccentricities. Absolute best case some duds are inevitable with rim fire ammo anyway. I'll share some more thoughts after it gets some range time.

Well kiddo is up and it is almost time to start moving towards dinner so it is time to wrap this up.

Hope you all are having a wonderful Christmas

Recent Conversations

I have had a couple conversations with close family members lately. One about precious metals and another about rifles. We will talk about them as part of the need for a quarterly rehashing of all basic topics.

A relative asked what I thought about silver and gold as an investment:

For the sake of avoiding repetition check out this post on getting into precious metals. I told him that I do not like PM's AS AN INVESTMENT. Making money buying and selling commodities requires buying low and selling high. If you have those skills that is great. Personally if I knew how to do that reliably I would be doing it for a living. That makes it basically gambling which probably is not smart.

I do like PM's as a conservative piece of my overall financial situation. Sort of like insurance or an alternative savings plan. I like them for protection against high inflation, currency debasement and even an outright economic collapse. They generally move opposite to more modern instruments like stocks and such which is nice. For most people assuming they are halfway financially squared away (no huge credit card balances, etc) putting some money into PM's makes sense.

We talked the qualities of both silver and gold. To recap silver is affordable and valued appropriately for day to day type transactions but it gets heavy fast while gold is very compact for it's value which would be useful if you have to move it. For his situation I said it would not be a bad idea to buy a big bag of silver then put the balance into gold, mostly 1 ounce bars/ rounds.

As to total amounts I recommended not to go crazy but maybe to put a certain % of your liquid assets into PM's. Depending on your situation and where you think the doom thermometer is this could be lower like 5% or more like 25%. Like most things somewhere in the middle is probably the way to go.

Another relative asked if I would recommend that he purchase an AR-15 or an AK-47. I told him to go with an AR. This is for a variety of reasons. First the price gap between the two weapons, which was part of the AK's advantage has closed drastically in recent years. Second given his military experience muscle memory lies with the AR. Third the logistics of potential resupply are probably better for the AR. John Mosby makes a case that the AR is a better weapon which is hard to argue with. That being said (and this is how I closed the talk) both are good guns that should serve you well.

There was also a separate thread of the conversation about specific builds for AR's and barrel twist rates. The answer was that considering that his intended uses of casual plinking and potential SHTF I suggested not to bother. If so inclined he could do a lot of research and spend a bunch of money. However my recommendation was that a good basic carbine like a S&W MP would do everything he wants for a lot less money.

Maybe these questions give a bit of insight into what normal non whacko survivalist folks are thinking about these days.

Garand Kit

These new pouches are probably the best option to fit those en bloc clips I have seen to date. You could keep a two pouch one loose to put on a belt for casual plinking or hunting or whatever and take a half dozen or so and place them on a vest, chest rig or plate carrier for a full load out. Not suprisingly these are from the same folks who make a buttstock carrier and a contemporary bandaleer for the garand. If my Garand was a primary defensive weapon instead of a collectable/ shooter I would spend some money on kit from Olongaop Outfitters.

Quote of the Day

"You can spend a lot of money on a knife, you can spend rifle money on a knife if you want to which I think is silly."
-Joe Fox of Viking preparedness

What is the Best Weapon for Home Defense?

Check out Box of Truth's recent post on the matter. In their typical fashion the BS is cut through using facts and real world experimentation/ analysis. Also they touch on a lot of myths.

Skipping to the conclusion for those who don't feel like reading: Rifles > Shotguns > Pistols.

Bolt Action Rifles

Today we will do a sort of overview of bolt action rifles. I will discuss their strengths and weaknesses in general and also delve into some specific models. This will not be all encompassing in nature and will be relatively brief when discussing military surplus bolt action rifles. My knowledge and interests do not lend me to going into depth. Also I just don’t see a point in it considering there are multiple books written about different variations of specific rifles.

First of all we will look on the most basic level at what bolt action rifles are. Bolt action rifles are rifles where the bolt is manually cycled for each shot. Cycling the bolt is typically done by a small handle attached to the bolt. When the bolt is cycled it ejects the spent casing, grabs a new round from the magazine, loads the round and cocks the rifle. Magazines are usually a fixed, internal box though some are removable. Bolt action rifles are almost all very similar in nature and most use a Mauser design from the late 19th century.

There are two real roles I see bolt action rifles filling for modern defensive shooters (versus collectors or hobbyists) and survivalists. Those roles are as a precision mid to long distance rifle and as a low cost rifle. They are also useful for hunting in general and particularly as a platform for powerful dangerous game rounds but that outside of the scope of this post.

Bolt action rifles are inherently accurate due to a strong action with very minimal movements. More significantly they are the most affordable rifles for precision mid to long distance (lets say 300 meters plus though 400 might be more accurate as it is about when standard semi auto rifles without optics start to fade) rifles available.

Very accurate offerings based on mil spec semi auto rifles are now available but at a steep price. Sure a Knight Armament M-110 or EBR’ed out M1A can be incredibly accurate but those top end precision guns cost more than most used cars. If you can afford to drop 2k on a rifle and 1k plus on an optic then good for you but for most folks that is a non starter.

However don’t despair you can get a decent rifle and scope combination for a few hundred dollars and a pretty good one for several hundred. These rifles have been made by a variety of manufacturers in variations and calibers too numerous to list. For the sake of discussion let us limit things to that are amply powerful for ‘deer sized game’ and shoot flat and handle wind well enough to be useful at long distances. Being a common caliber guy the logical conclusion is either .308 or 30.06 though if you really want a .300 win mag or a .270 or something else reasonably common (don’t be that guy whose only rifle is a total oddball) then I suppose that is probably fine. The .308 is slightly more inherently accurate (than the 30.06) and available in more interesting bullet/ cartridge offerings which give it an edge; on the other hand in the real shooting world I would say 30.06 is more common and if you need versatility in heavy bullet weights it has an edge.

It is worth talking about accuracy a little bit. I think lots of folks dump a ton of money into a rifle and optic they never use to close to its full potential or put off buying a “precision rifle” because they do not have a couple thousand dollars lying around. For most folks a decent rifle with a decent optic costing $500-800 is all they need. Certainly it is enough to get started. Without starting a flame war or a ton of deliberate thought the consensus seems to be that a rifle/ optic combination needs to be capable of holding about 2moa to be a viable candidate for a “precision rifle”. Now that is not particularly amazing and many rifles can do it. Lots of custom high end jobs can do 1 moa or less. If your goal is to shoot paper or steel a kilometer out and you have thousands of dollars to spend then there are some amazing rifles out there. However for most people’s goals the cost is probably not warranted. Let us look at this; 2 moa would be an eye socket at 100 meters and a head at 250-300 and a center mass shot out to somewhere around 500-600 depending on the target. Most shooters can’t do better than that under ideal conditions, let alone inherently less than desirable field conditions. Given realistic conditions where you may take shots out to say 600 meters a decent rifle/ optic setup and a lot of experience are what you need. Beyond that and it starts being less practical and more for bragging rights by the meter anyway. One viable strategy would be to get a starter setup and down the road if you get serious about it start looking at a better one and sell your old gun or stash it someplace as a backup.
Gabe Suarez’s “Guerilla Sniper” idea/ courses are probably more useful to an average shooter than bench shooting from some super expensive and heavy custom gun. It emphasized mid range shooting under realistic field conditions with pretty normal and common gear.

The best deals are not on tacticool urban swat sniper rifles but on good old generic deer rifles. Pretty much every decent gun shop has a used rack full of these guns often at great deals. I hesitate to get mired in specific manufacturers or models because it really just gets dumb. I will however give the standard advice to stick with common models from major manufacturers. This is for two reasons. First they are much easier to get parts and accessories (like scope mounts or sling swivels or whatever) for and second because they are major manufacturers and common models for a very good reason. Companies don’t stay around for several decades and make hundreds of thousands or millions of a specific model because they suck. I am talking about manufacturers like Winchester, Remington, Ruger, Savage, Weatherby and the like. There are a lot of good viable offerings in used guns and if money is a concern that is a good way to go.

If I was going to buy a new rifle it would be a Savage 110. They are good gun at an affordable price. I don’t mean to boo hoo Remington or Ruger or anybody else as lots of manufacturers make fine guns. It is just that the new Savages offer a lot of good features without frills and fluff at a very competitive price.

As my last thought on “precision rifles” don’t be that guy who buys a nice new rifle and then immediately gets the cheapest piece of junk scope Walmart sells. Personally for distance shooting I have found that optics are at least as important, if not more than, the rifle. Decent rifles are sufficiently mechanically accurate but a scope limits how much of that accuracy the shooter can readily use. In any case buy at least a decent scope like a Bushnell or Nikon. Of course you can always get more by paying more but it is worth it to at least price/ consider some higher end manufacturers like Leupold.

This brings us back to the theme that it is important to consider the cost of fully equipping a weapon. Not just the gun but the gun, optic and ammunition. Caliber comes back around here because some rounds like 300 win mag are pretty expensive. For a typical hunter who shoots maybe 40 rounds a year an extra 5 bucks per box of 20 is not a huge deal. However for a survivalist who wants to stash several hundred  rounds or more or a serious shooter who wants to shoot a few cases of ammo a year cost is a significant factor. Remember to consider the cost of an optic in your overall budget. Unlike a defensive rifle where an optic is a luxury that can be purchased later it is pretty much a necessity here.  Many of these guns either entirely omit sights or give a crude semi buckhorn which is good out to about 100 meters. I heard once that you should plan to spend about the cost of the gun again on a scope.  Personally if given the choice I would rather have a $700 scope on top of a $200 rifle than the opposite.

So in conclusion lots of readily available bolt action rifles will do just fine for “precision work”. If you already have a bolt action rifle in a reasonably flat shooting caliber (not like 45-70 or something else with shotput ballistics) then I would seriously consider just using it. If you want to buy a new rifle the Savage 110 offers a lot of value.

The other real role bolt action rifles have is in the form of old WWI-II era surplus rifles as a low cost budget rifle. To be blunt I have never been a fan of this strategy. If I have to shoot a rifle at somebody I want it to be military pattern and self loading with a detachable box magazine at least until something better is invented then I will try to get one of those. Any argument that a bolt action rifle from 65+ years ago is comparable or in any way equal  to an AK or an AR (or whatever) for fighting is a load of hog wash, sorry but it is true.
Now don’t get me wrong, I love a deal, Wifey and I are some of the cheapest people you will meet. It is just that to me this is sort of like looking for a bargain on factory second fire extinguishers direct from China or buying a used and beat up looking car seat for kiddo. It is my opinion that there are many places to cut corners but safety and defensive gear are not on the list. [As a general statement I would do some prioritization and maybe sell some unneeded stuff or work more to get the cash to acquire quality gear and weapons. I have done it before and will likely do it again.] However I have a real job that earns a decent income and we live pretty simply so we can put money into things that are important to us now and then. I do recognize it is a lot easier to say “it is worth it” if you have the money. 

Between the stagnant wages and rising costs of food, fuel, insurance and about everything else lots of folks are barely treading water. Also if we are being honest lots of folks prioritize other things above getting their selves prepared. Regardless there are certainly some folks who are on permanent disability or who make 23 grand a year and have 6 kids or whatever the situation is. For these folks $300 or whatever is what they can scrape together for a rifle, some ammo and accessories after digging deep and saving.

Enter the military surplus rifle.
These old warhorses are big, heavy and shoot pretty powerful cartridges. Most are about 5 feet long, weight 25 pounds or so (an exaggeration), hold 5 or in the case of the Enfield 10 bullets which are very comparable to the 30.06 and are accurate to as far as you can see and shoot with their iron sights. There are too many variations to discuss fully in a book, let alone a blog post so I am going to zero in on the ones that really fit this specific need.

The most viable option is a Russian Mosin Nagant in 7.62x54R with various Mauser, Enfield and Springfield rifles lurking in the potentially viable category. The reason I have immediately eliminated so many other rifles is that you cannot get widely available affordable ammunition for them, or in some cases ammo period. The pattern seems to be that rifles and ammo are available dirt cheap and everywhere then the cheap ammo is gone and rifles come up piece mil, but more expensively and in lower quality. Ammo is then either entirely unavailable or is darn expensive. A $79 rifle for which ammo is brutally expensive (I have seen a dollar plus a shot in some cases) is OK for a collector but for a person that is seriously short on cash, is relying on that rifle and  likes to keep a lot of ammo around / practice regularly that situation obviously will not work.
The reason the Mosin Nagant is the obvious choice is that the rifles are readily affordable and ammunition is available and cheap. Without being up on the latest prices you can probably get a Mosin Nagant for something around $110-140 delivered and spam cans of 440 rounds of ammo probably run $60ish. Certainly you could have a gun with basic accessories and a reasonable stash of ammo for about $300-400. There is still cheap ammo available and commercially manufactured new ammo to fill gaps which may appear in time albeit at new commercial ammo prices.

Mauser’s are fairly cheap but can have ammunition availability and cost issues. Since they were made and used in numerous calibers by so many countries it is hard to speak about them in generalities. The issue with the other two is cost to equip and or purchase them. Enfield’s are probably the best rifle of the bunch, especially since they have a 10 round detachable magazine. They can still be had at sane ( I would say 200ish on up depending on make/ model/ condition) and .303 ammo is available though it is mostly new commercial manufacture stuff at new commercial manufacture prices. There are some Enfields around in .308 and I am hopefully going to buy one someday, though not really for practical reasons. The Springfield 03 is probably the most expensive of the bunch to purchase and is thus really more of a collector’s item. You will have a hard time touching one for under $350-400 and those are probably going to be “sporterized” which depending on who did it, what they did, and your tastes may or may not be a bad thing. They shoot 30.06 which is still sometimes available surplus and readily available commercially and are very accurate rifles. However the cost of the rifle and ammunition puts it out of the budget of most that choose to go the surplus rifle route.
A Mosin Nagant and a few spam cans of ammo are far better than no rifle or a couple hundred bucks in small bills sitting in a dusty envelope that says FN-FAL (or whatever). If I had to go this route I would put a lot of energy into practicing rapidly cycling the bolt from my shoulder and engaging multiple targets at close to moderate ranges. I would be sure to practice reloading it from stripper clips. Basically you would be taking the CQB lessons that have permeated from .mil to .gov to everybody else in the past decade and apply them as best you can to an old war horse. Also I would want a big old sword bayonet on the thing and a handgun ready as a backup. I would also look hard at getting a pump shotgun to fill in for CQB ranges.

[Despite my strong reservations for these warhorses as a primary defensive tool there are some interesting possibilities here. A rifle you could loan a neighbor or family member or a spare long gun to bury/ hide in the rafters of your cabin set aside for a rainy day. Is it not the rifle I would want to go to war with but as a backup it would be far better than no rifle at all. It would be hard on the budget to go stashing AR’s and AK’s all over the place but at $300 for a Mosin, bare bones accessories and a few spam cans it could be viable. Given the low price point for a Mosin Nagant rifle and some ammo you could easily set aside a couple over time.]

So in closing bolt action rifles can have a legitimate place in a practical shooter or survivalist’s firearms battery for harvesting game, precision shooting or as a budget all around rifle. Also they are fun.

Magazines

It is about time to talk this subject again in my rotating semi repetitive foundational posts. Magazines are important because well magazine fed firearms suck without them. Seriously for want of a magazine a quality defensive firearm becomes a slow to reload single shot weapon.

Quality- I strongly recommend that you buy only factory original magazines for practical defensive use. Buying junk aftermarket magazines is penny smart and dollar foolish, I can’t think of many other ways to invite more grief into your shooting life. If you really want to have “range mags” that are junk then I guess that is fine but keep them separate. Personally I don’t see the point in this as I train with what I would fight with and even if that was not the case I still hate bad mags, even at the range.

The one exception to this is for military pattern weapons. Surplus/ government magazines are typically comparable to factory originals. Also for these military pattern weapons sometimes a magazine is so ambiguous that many companies have quality offerings, this is the case with the AR and 1911 and maybe to a lesser degree the AK given the new US Palm offerings.

Cost- When most reasonable people buy a car they consider the cost to insure and repair it. Sometimes you might be looking at two similar cars and one may (usually because it is foreign or rare) have much higher costs. I recommend you do the same with guns in terms of spare parts, ammo (both separate topics) and magazines. I’m not saying to absolutely avoid guns like Sig’s and HK’s with high magazine costs in favor of ones with much lower cost magazines like Glocks or 1911’s or the Browning HP or whatever. My point is to consider the costs and make sure you can afford them.

Spending all the money to have a defensive pistol or rifle and having less than a handful of mags because of their cost is flat out stupid. I read something on line about a guy who used a rare and from all I have heard very nice Valumet .308 as his rifle. He had one twenty round mag, which a friend lost but that brings us to a whole different topic, for the thing. Seriously he could swap it for a good G3 clone and have a combat load of magazines for the price of lunch at a casual dining restaurant.

Quantity- This is certainly a subject for debate. Personally my happy levels are 10 for a pistol and 20 for a rifle. My standard load would be 3 pistol magazines and about 7 rifle magazines, though of course it depends on the situation. This gives me a full load of magazines, a spare set (maybe at another location) and a few for replacement/trade/friends. Note that this is PER GUN. So if you have three pistols it would be 30 magazines, for two AR’s would be 40 magazines, etc. Also this is for core type defensive weapons. For .22’s, a .380 pocket pistol, etc I keep somewhere around 5. Admittedly my appreciation of nice round numbers could be a factor.

Some folks might be comfortable with less and that is probably reasonable. Two full loads of magazines is probably a good bottom point. For a pretty conventional setup would be about 6 per pistol and more than a dozen per rifle. This is enough that if a magazine is lost or damaged and you can’t replace it immediately it will not be a critical loss.

Some folks like more magazines and that is just fine too. Our friend Commander Zero brings up the point that magazines are the easiest and most likely piece of gun stuff to be targeted by a ban, heck we had one for a miserable decade. It is entirely possible that almost overnight % or that what you have could be ALL YOU WILL EVER GET.  I came of gun buying age during that ban and it sucked. When I started making decent money and had taken care of a few more pressing matters I put some money into magazines. If what I have now is all I am ever going to get that wouldn’t be ideal but I would not be completely hosed either. Think about that for awhile and skipping a couple dinners out (make your spouse dinner or do something else nice instead) to have a few magazines put away just in case might not seem like a bad idea.

Replacement-Magazines are a disposable item that have a finite lifespan and require periodic replacement. In this regard they are sort of like a Timex digital watch. They last a long time but they do inevitable break or get worn out and the easiest course of action is to replace them when that happens.

 If there was a list of things that cause shooters unnecessary problems using magazines that are worn out, damaged or otherwise unserviceable; comes  after buying bad mags in the first place, and would be followed by using cheap ammo in a gun that can’t handle it.

Why go through the hassle. Seriously it isn’t that big of an expense to buy quality magazines and periodically replace them. If springs are worn out replace the spring. If the magazine body is worn out then toss it.
Maintenance-Inspect magazines to make sure they are free of rust and that the inside is not all gummed up with crud. Oiling magazines in not recommended as it attracts gunk which causes issues. Just take them apart and wipe them down now and then.

Rotating- This is a hotly debated topic to which I am not sure there is a right answer. Springs can get ‘set’ and that causes the magazine to jam and have feeding issues or completely lock up or in some cases just puke out bullets. This is bad for obvious reasons. My observation is that functional magazines can stay loaded for months at a time with no noticeable issues. I don’t know what the right answer is. One clear benefit of rotating magazines is that it CONFIRMS that the magazine is still functional and that it will work. Best case it gives you an opportunity to confirm the mags are good and do a quick cleaning. Worst case it could show you that a magazine may need some TLC or new springs. The best time to find out you need to do this is when you are maintaining/ rotating magazines, not when you need the darn gun to work.

Guns in Get Home Bags and Long guns in Vehicles

I caught part of a discussion on guns in get home bags the other day. In general for the purposes of getting home I think whatever your normal carry piece [you do carry a gun right? I do not mean some ultra compact .32 but a decent fighting handgun you can hit stuff with, right?] is sufficient and a couple extra reloads are a sound idea. If you do not carry a gun then having one in your kit is a good idea because it is difficult to shoot somebody without a gun. In a scenario where you are headed home in a unorganized fashion, possibly on foot due to who knows what being able to shoot somebody could come in handy.

To me the ideal gun for this situation is a compact or full sized pistol, whichever you prefer and have anyway. Glock 19/17, a 4” .357 or a 1911 or whatever else suits your fancy it doesn’t matter. Personally I would have a Glock 19 because I like them. The point of this handgun is to let you defend yourself from an immediate personal threat while you are driving, walking or whatever home if things get wonky.
Unless you work/ travel so far from home that you can’t make it on an MRE and a handful of granola bars, and that area is rural I don’t see a need to have a .22 or something to hunt small game with. On the other hand if I lived and traveled long distances in rural Alaska or the real isolated parts of the West I would have a rifle capable of taking large game, a .22 and whatever pistol I was carrying in addition to my other supplies. In my opinion with the exception for long distances (say 100 miles plus) in seriously rural areas a get home kit doesn’t need anything except your normal carry pistol.

Now we will move on to the topic of guns in vehicles. For pistols I can sum it up in one sentence, better than the nightstand but nowhere near as good as the waistband. There is one exception. A friend of mine carried a Walther PPK/S and kept a Browning High power in his car just in case. Not a bad way to go all things considered, especially if you won’t carry the bigger gun.

For long guns it is not as simple. Long guns in vehicles can have two good roles: rural work tasks and opportunity hunting or disasters\ civil disorder. Rural work tasks and hunting is pretty much self explanatory. A rancher with a coyote problem keeping his .22-250 in the truck to take a shot when he gets a chance or a guy putting his rifle in the truck during hunting season in case he has a slow afternoon at work and can skip out, etc.

Disasters that are bad enough that (or happen in a way especially unlucky for you where) they will prevent you from immediately going home are where these long guns come to shine in my opinion. If you happened to be visiting a cousin at the start of the LA Riots or Katrina an AK or a pump shotgun with a few hundred rounds in the car would be awful handy. Also it would be good for a Zombie apocalypse.

The biggest issue of this plan is if you have to move on foot. The places where it is socially acceptable to walk down the side of the road with a rifle are not ones likely to have traffic which would impede vehicular traffic.  Walking out of the nearest town with a mall carrying a rifle is going to lead to interaction with the cops and quite possibly incarceration. For laymen that is really bad. Zombie apocalypse excluded all the situations which would require you to move home on foot that I can think of offhand are not ones where a rifle at low ready would work.

That would leave you with two options. Have a long gun you can conceal somehow or leave it behind. I don’t know about you but leave it behind is not a great option to me. For concealing it an SBR would be perfect but that has its own issues. Something with a folding stock also has a lot of promise. An AK with a folding stock gets pretty small as does Mini 14 or really anything else with a 16-18 in barrel and no stupid AR buffer tube. It wouldn’t be the fastest to bring to bear but you shouldn’t need it and you’ve got a pistol for that anyway.

I would bear in mind that this long gun (a shotgun could do fine too if you are so inclined) stands a higher than normal likelihood of being stolen as it will live in your vehicle. Along those lines if you can’t afford to lose it then don’t keep it in the car. I had one rifle it would not pull full time trunk duty but that is just me. This is a great place for a backup rifle or a second or third of a kind weapon.

Personally I do not see a reason at this point to keep a long gun in my vehicle all the time. I bring one if I am going far from home or out into the woods. Needless to say guns need bullets so bring plenty of those too. 4-5 magazines and 200-300 rounds seems reasonable to me. In writing this I realize I should add a decent system to carry those magazines on me and a small cleaning kit.

Thoughts?

AK 47 Folding Stock installation

Awhile back I saw an AK47 with a wire folding stock at the range. When the owner and I got into the usual "geee that is nice" type conversation I asked about it. After getting permission I fondled it and found it delightful. He mentioned it was a WASR 10 and a Romanian side folding stock then suggested OST as a source for the stock. He also had a US Palm grip on it which I found very nice but have yet to get around to ordering (which I will rectify that eventually) so isn't really worth further discussion.

Since I got back one of the preparedness oriented things I did want to do is install a folding stock on my rifle. I got out the stock and the rifle which was a good first step. Next I opened a bottle of Heineken. After initial inspection the stock had a little bit of rust on it. I took that off with some sandpaper (yeah I don't care about the finish at all a reason AK's are awesome, it will get touched up with spreay paint) easily enough. When I was in the garage I also picked up a phillips screwdriver from the garage when I was out there. Consulting the wire side folding stock I was it had two screws. One was exposed on the stock and the other was on the inside (take off the top cover and pull out the working parts, it is in the back). I removed them easily enough with the screwdriver. I grabbed the stock and gave it a tug. It did not come off. I looked to confirm it was not attached anywhere. Then I grabbed a flat screwdriver to pry with (AK's are great, who cares if I scar the wood a little bit) and stock it through the small hole in the receiver where you can see the end of the stock and gently pried. It came out easy enough. Old stock off.

Now to put the new stock on. I looked at it and upon getting it ready to install noticed it had hex bolts. I could not find a hex key anywhere (not my residence) but found a screwdriver which would work using the redneck method of finding a screwdriver that just barely fits and can turn the bolt. I went to slide it the stock in and it wouldn't quite fit. I took the combination outside and gently bumped the butt of the extended stock into the concrete patio. Two bumps later it and the stock slid right in. I put the screws in and it slid right into place. I tightened the bolt, put the working parts back in and it was good to go.

I am lazy and did not take pictures but thanks to the power of google I still show you. Here is what the new stock looks like, this is what the rifle looked like and this is what it looks like now.

The butt as it hits my shoulder is almost identical. The lockup is rock solid both when extended and collapsed. The sling swivel already atttached is a great touch. The rifle folds up pretty darn small also. It could easily fit into a medium sized duffel bag or a rucksack. Somebody makes a nice backpack that just happens to fit this setup.

What uses does this have? Well discrete transportation is obvious. Being able to carry a rifle to or from my residence, outdoors or wherever is just convenient. No point in scaring the sheeple. It could also be very helpful in numerous darker scenarios. Also collapsible stocks are great for handling a rifle in and around vehicles, etc, or just comfortably carrying a rifle in situations where you want it but the odds of actual contact are low.

This was truly a "drop in" part change. I am thrilled with it.

The next steps in project AK will be a more intentional sling and a us palm grip. After that I have some other ideas but will talk about them later.

Thoughts on Insurgencies- What Made the Mujahedeen Successful

Thoughts on Insurgencies- What Made The Mujahedeen Successful?
I am going to try to discuss some of the reasons the Mujahedeen were so successful in Afghanistan against the Soviet’s. Some might draw parallels to the US experience here and I would say they have a case in some areas, though not in others. In no particular order here we go.
•    Rural Afghan’s are, particularly in the South and East of the country, strongly tribal in nature and very militaristic. When not fighting outsiders the tribes seem to, almost without exception, fight each other. It is about the closest thing to a cultural pastime as this country has.
•    They started out reasonably trained in small unit and individual tactics. Why, well I think consistent tribal warfare is the answer. This was probably the most helpful in the beginning because if you take anybody and toss them into a guerilla war after a year, should they be alive, they have some skills and knowledge.
•    They fought to their strengths and as such avoided their enemy’s strengths. Knowledge of local terrain coupled with hitting weak targets and vanishing worked pretty well. It helps when you can use the same hill Grandpa used to fight the British coming along the same road. This leads back to my last comment about training and knowledge.
•    Physical fitness. Between their rough lifestyle, reliance on foot transportation, moderate calorie intake and lack of medical care (that meant the sick and crippled were either useless in the village or dead) Afghan’s of military age were physically fit. They could haul butt up the side of a mountain carrying a medium machine gun after an ambush and leave the soviet’s panting at the bottom.

 [In my opinion physical fitness is the most lacking trait of American militia/ guerilla wanna be’s (I don’t mean “wanna be” in a derogatory way, just that since we don’t have a guerilla war going on it is kind of just a self imposed label instead of a title). Seriously if these guys spent half as much time exercising as they do arguing about what pouches to have on load out gear or which rifle to use in internet forum’s they would be much better off. I get particular amusement when somebody who is a disgusting fat body and probably hasn’t ran a whole mine this year talks about being a “light fighter” and using “hit and run tactics”. Many of these individuals are good, well meaning people and I probably poke too much fun. I hope that if any of them read this instead of taking it personal they look inward. If this side rant is hitting too close to home I recommend that you get onto a reasonable but ambitious physical fitness program and exercise some self control at meal time to get into fighting shape. ]

•    A proliferation of small arms, particularly rifles. Every military aged male did not have a rifle but a heck of a lot of them did. Eventually they started capturing weapons and getting them shipped in by foreign backers but for awhile it was just rural Afghan’s and their rifles.
•    A cohesive and resolute group vision. Rural Afghan life is very traditional and tribal, especially in the Pastun areas to the South and East, and its values stood in stark contrast to what the Afghan communists and their Soviet backers sought to impose. They were, and the Soviets never quite got this, absolutely unwilling to compromise and would rather just fight.
•    There are probably more but a couple of these are already more generic of all guerillas than is my intent. Now let us not forget the two factors which had a massive impact on events and were largely outside of the Muj’s control.
•    Safe haven’s. In particular the ability to seek medical treatment, shelter their families, train, plan and recover in Pakistan had a direct and immeasurable effect on the war. The Soviet’s launched a few rockets and probably a few raids but in the big picture the Muj were safe to recover and plan in Pakistan and parts of Iran.
•    Outside Aid. Despite some fantasy ideas to the contrary it is difficult to keep a force fielded without feeding and equipping them. While guerilla logistics are pretty simple and light they still need weapons, bullets to shoot, explosives and food to eat. Being able to keep at least part (this improved as the war progressed) of their force through the whole fighting season was essential to building up cohesive organizations and conducting significant operations. Even if you want them really bad guns, food and bullets don’t just appear. Also as these wars go on for years stocking enough of anything except maybe shoe laces to get you through one is wishful thinking.
•    A long term vision. In a sound bite and paragraph quote world they thought in terms of seasons and years. The Muj were never going to win in a sense where they militarily forced the Russians out. They could however continually make it uncomfortable for the Russians to be here (I am in Afghanistan as I write this, oh irony) until their government decided it was time to throw in the towel.

Homework Assignment of the Week

Get Ready For A Fight

How long does it take to get whatever you want for fight? It could be a home invasion or zombies or the Mongul Hordes. I am not asking what your go gear is and it doesn't really matter. It could be a pistol with a holster and a couple mags, a shotgun with a bandolleer or a plate carrier and a rifle. The question is how long does it take for you to get it all together and ready to go. If your rifle is in a safe, your mags are unloaded in an ammo can and the plate carrier is burried in a box in the garage it might be a half an hour. Obviously this is a rather extreme case of the WRONG ANSWER but don't be too hard on yourself if that is the case. The point of these assignments is to provoke thought and help you folks out.

 

Out of curiosity how long does it take and what is your setup?

 

Homework Assignment of the Week

Go to the range. Take the pistol you most regularly carry concealed and whatever long gun you prefer for home defense. It doesn't matter if you can shoot the eye out of a squirrel at 30 yards with a 6" .357 or a customized 1911 safe queen if you are carrying a snub nosed .38 or a mini Glock. If you can't hit squat with your carry piece it either means you need to practice more with it or start carrying a gun you can actually hit stuff with.

 

To be honest if you can't hit targets at home defense range (say under 30 yards) with a long gun it is either time to check your equipment or to go back to the drawing board in terms of basic marksmenship. No shame in either though macho pride will take a hit. Better to learn that the rifle you zeroed with one box of ammo 5 years ago has had that zero bounced out in 12 road trips and 3 moves, or that you need some refresher training, at the range this week than when you need to use the darn thing for real.

 

Bonus points for taking the spouse or kids.

Random thoughts on Rifles

Aside from hunting I find they have two real uses. The first, for the right kind of rifle, is home defense. Sure you need a pistol, both to carry outside your home and for those 11pm knocks on the door which are almost surely the next door neighbor wanting to borrow ice or needing help with something. Don't need to scare them half to death with a rifle but you do want to be armed. However if you are reasonably certain there is a person or person's in your home a reasonably compact semi automatic rifle is a great choice. In fact it is very arguably the best choice. The next category is for worst case scenarios where you may need to defend yourself or otherwise project your will past pistol range. That being said rifles have a far more limited role than one might think.

 

I personally like to take a rifle with me for long trips, both for defense and in case something happens. There are situations where the presence of a semi automatic rifle will make people see the light about their evil ways when a pistol might not.

 

I hate to tell you this but scenarios where you would openly carry long arms while going about normal visiting, commerce and errands are quite slim. That stuff just doesn't happen much outside fiction novels.

 

However lets just say something did happen. What, where and how would you be carrying a rifle. One thing that I have seen personally is how convenient fully collapsible (H und K type) or folding buttstocks are. They make the package of a rifle much more compact. One of the real flaws of the M4 in my opinion. Obviously you will need some sort of a sling. There are many types so find one you like and don't pinch too many pennies.

 

Next comes ammo. Over here in Iraq and Afghanistan we carry 1 mag for our weapon while doing stuff around the base. The thinking is that 1 mag is enough to deal with any immediate threat from direct fire or action. Is that enough for you around the house/ barn area if things get wonky? We have lots of other friends with guns as well as guys on guard and QRF forces that beat what even the biggest survivalist group could realistically put out. Also we all carry the same rifle so I could grab a mag from somebody with their loaded vest on. That is yet another reason to standardize rifles. I would probably be inclined to have 1 extra magazine, either attached to my weapon in some fashion or on my belt. Clint Smith promotes having a small home defense pouch with a reload for your weapon a flashlight and a charged cell phone. To be honest in and around the house if you need more than 2 20-30rd mags either you are back inside in a prepared defensive position, have won or are dead. Sorry but it's true.

 

If I was taking a walk to the neighbors or the corner of my property maybe a couple extra mags (2-3) wouldn't be a bad idea. The new camelback's have the PALS system of webbing so you could easily stick 2 spare mags on one. If I was going to town, or ye olde barter faire or really anything except some sort of intentional military operation I would feel fine using this sort of setup and having my full out chest rig sitting on the seat of the car or whatever.

 

I guess the likelihood of contact, speed of backup if applicable and the group you are traveling in would dictate what is reasonable. If I was walking around in Mad Max ville 7 mags doesn't seem like a bad idea but I probably don't need that to walk to the neighbors or around the block.

 

Really I would probably put more emphasis on being able to carry multiple mags for the pistol, concealed or not, which is far less likely to cause me any problems.

 

Thoughts?

A Note From Lucky Gunner

For all you 'Battle Rifle' folks. Our friends at Lucky Gunner have got some good deals on .308 ammo going right now. They are also offering a deal for $30 off on a case of Magtech .308 ammo. The code is “Magtech308-$30OFF “ and it is good until Friday the 25th.

Bags VS Chest Rigs/ LBE's

Bags that are expressedly built to carry the necessary stuff for a rifle fight (but not fit the rifle itself) have started popping up over the last few years. I got to thinking about them today because I saw someone talking about them on some blog. After some reflection here are my thoughts.

As a replacement for a chest rig/ lbe rifle bags are junk. They are hard to carry under less than casual walking around conditions. Seriously when was the last time you tried to run a couple miles with a fairly heavy duffel bag flopping around all over the place? Bet it wasn't real comfortable. What about trying to overcome real world type obstacles with a duffel bag getting hung up on everything?

I know that no matter what I am doing with a chest rig/ rack or to a slightly lesser degree an LBE (they flop around more) I know exactly where my mags are and can get them out quickly. My IFAK is in the same place also, not burried in a small duffel bag flopping around someplace.

If I saw a realistic chance of anything happening I would toss a legit chest rif inside of a duffel bag to carry it around conveniently and discretely if need be. So a 'rifle bag' does not replace a chest rig/ rack/ lbe for likely combat type situations. I would not say that doesn't mean they cannot have a legitimate nitche. What is that nitche exactly?

To me that nitche is as more of a tactical equivalent of a range bag. There is not a known or likely scenario where you see yourself using your rifle. You are just going camping or on a road trip or like to keep a gun in the trunk or whatever. While you aren't planning on anything really bad happening having 4-6 mags, a few extra boxes of ammo, maybe a tourniquet or two and some misc gun stuff just makes sense. Instead of having junk all over the place it is desirable to keep everything nicely organized in a purpose built bag.

A bag of this type is on my long list of gear.

.223 vs 12 Guage and Pistol Penetration On Inside Walls

Read this. Turns out that maybe you are better off with a rifle in terms of penetration in addition to round capacity and other factors. The kind of heavy shot that actually stops people (not to rehash another myth but at more than a few feet birdshot is for birds) blows through typical residential inner walls. I wish they had brought something in 7.62x39 along too.  Edited a few minutes afterwords to include. Turns out somebody did test 7.62x39 Wolf FMJ's. I suspect 7.62x39 JHP or SP ammo would have more managed penetration.

Food for thought.

AK's For The Ladies

Dear TOR, I know you have a lot on your plate right now, but I'd appreciate it if you could do a blog sometime about the different AK-47s. I saw a MIL channel story about Mr. K and how the AK-47 (and later AK-74) came about. I've also read a lot about its functionality, low maintenance, etc., but I've never seen anyone comment on the differences between countries of manufacture. Are Chinese AKs better than Romanian? What about Ukranian? Others? Are Russian-made the best - and if so, where can you get one? Are the differences significant to anyone other than an African warlord?

What features are most useful? What kind of gear have you put on yours? Do you like the larger 7.+ ammo or the 5.+ better? Why?Would you recommend an AK for a small woman (like me), vs an AR-15? What are the differences in the way they handle, reload, etc.? Does it matter? I have an AR (Bushmaster) and would like an AK, "just because," but I don't really "need" one. Should I just stick with the AR? That way I won't have to stockpile a different calibre of ammo.


Comments? Recommendations? Thnx.


Saddle Tramp
 
TOR here: I will try my best to answer all these questions. As for the difference in AK's from different countries. AK's are sort of like anything else made by dozens of countries over many decades in factories too numerous to count, let alone mention. While the design is pretty standard they vary in all sorts of ways. Think of it like eggs benedict. If you go to a hundred places and order eggs benedict and it will never be quite the same. Some are great, most are good or at least OK and a few are just bad. Certainly they are all different.
 
Making AK's in the good old USA even more complicated you aren't getting an AK from a given period, made in a certain factory in a given country. You are getting an AK with all those variables that was potentially stored for decades, sold off in a huge lot, taken apart and shipped across the world to be reassembled with some new parts.
 
So are Chinese AK's (they are called MAK-90's) better than Romanian AK's? I would say yes. The Norico MAK-90 is a darn good gun. My uncle had one a decade ago and it was a great rifle. I've heard there were some QA/QC issues with them but that is fair to say about most all AK importers. The Romanian AK's are (to be brief, I will revisit it later) not at all bad guns though their fit and finish could be said to leave something to be desired. If I was in the market for an AK and saw a gently used MAK-90 and a gently used WASR-10 or SAR-1 for the same price I would get the MAK-90.
 
As for the various Eastern European AK's on the market. I am disinclined to try and rank order the AK producing countries and then break it further down by commerical models. You ask "Are the differences significant to anyone other than an African warlord?". That is not the question you should be asking. The question you should be asking is "are the differences significant to anyone other than a fanboy in some forum or a collector?" The answer is probably not. Assuming the individual weapon is reliable a scenario where a higher dollar AK will keep you alive but a WASR-10 won't doesn't exist. Fit and finish varies but that is really just superficial. If you have the extra cash to get nicer fit and finish and it is important to you then go for it.  Think of it like a Colt revolver versus a Ruger or a Taurus. Both are totally functional weapons, while the Colt has a lot better fit and finish you do pay for.
 
For features I would say you need a good sling, a bunch of mags, plenty of ammo and something to carry your mags. If you feel like getting fancy a red dot/ reflex sight and a tac light are always nice for close up work. I haven't gotten fancy with mine yet. Just a rifle with a sling, mags, ammo and assorted web gear.
 
As for the AK 47 in 7.62x39 or the AK74 in 5.45x whatever. Personally I own and like the AK47 in 7.62x39. No real deep reasoning behind it. It is a very nice round inside the ranges where civilian combat could happen, most military conflicts happen and the AK can actually hit stuff at. Also 5.45 is almost identical to 5.56 which I already had lying around. I am not going to say 5.45 AK's are bad. In the real gun owning and shooting America 7.62x39 AK's are all over the place. Also milsurp and cheap import 7.62x39 ammo is available. Commercial 7.62x39 ammo exists though the market is small because it is impossible to outprice Wolf and Tulla. For my AK47 if ammo imports stopped tomorrow I could get Walmart white box or a variety of other makes it would just cost average centerfire rifle prices. Deep stocking would be expensive but shooting a few hundred rounds a year to keep familiar would be doable.
 
 In 5.45 ammo is stupidly cheap which is nice because it is frickin impossible to buy it anywhere except mail/ internet order. While I haven't exactly been looking for it I can't recall seeing milsurp or commerical 5.45 ammo in a single brick and mortar store. I am not saying you shouldn't get an AK74 though if you do get one order CASES of ammo. In general I am quite content with 3k  rounds of ammo for a defensive rifle. If I was an AK74 owner it would be at least double that. They haven't caught on enough to justify (as far as I can tell) any real commerical offerings of ammo If the milsurp supply was cut off, by say executive order that would mean they wouldn't catch on more and thus ammo would not likely become commercially available.
 
AK's are probably better for a smaller person than an AR because their length of pull is shorter. They are designed to consider 'nutritionally challenged' conscripts and central Asian troops of compact stature. AK's aren't much heavier than AR's so that is a wash. Handling of AK's is simpler than AR's because they require less manipulation if just because the only controls are the safety, bolt and trigger. Mag changes are different than an AR because they are 'rock in' mags. Just like a Mini-14 or an M1A. Not a big deal, just something to get used to. The AK recoils noticably more than the AR but well so does everything else. The AK has a very comparable cartridge to the 30-30 Winchester and weigh's almost 50% more than a Winchester 94 which I don't think anybody considers a bruiser. If need be then get a recoil pad but familiarity and training is the real issue.

If you want an AK and can afford to properly equip one (to include mags and ammo) without skimping somewhere important then get it. An utterly reliable rifle that can take a beating and is cheap to practice with has a place in every collection. Most folks who get past all the hype and actually start using AK's like them. Worst case you can probably sell it for very close to what you paid.