TexasCHLforum.com

HankB wrote:.308/7.62 NATO rounds certainly hit harder than .223/5.56 or 7.62x39, but the rifles tend to be longer & heavier. (Have an M1A and an StG-58 myself) But seldom will one have to take an 800-yard shot in a defensive situation. For HD, I would much rather use an AR or AK than a full size battle rifle.

For HD, I agree, and I have an AR for that purpose. Suarez was talking about a general purpose rifle for TEOTWAWKI.

HankB wrote:

flintknapper wrote:Unless I have to defend my home in the middle of a sand storm...then it will always be the AR for me.

Good point - here stateside, few of us are going to be using a firearm under really adverse conditions - we generally don't have to worry about a rifle functioning after it's been coated with fine sand for most of a patrol, or after being dropped in a rice paddy, or coated with sleet from a winter storm. So the "which is more reliable" is largely academic . . . unless you've built your AR on the cheap out of gun show components of questionable origin. (Few build their AKs.)

Under "normal" conditions I'll pick a good AR for its superior ergonomics - the AK round hits harder, but with good ammo (I'm not limited to FMJ!) the AR certainly hits hard enough.

If I knew I was going into severe conditions, the AK has a lot of merits. And a good AK is going to be a lot cheaper than a good AR. But logistics do favor the AR.

AR for HD. M1A for everything else requiring a harder hitting round. If I had to pick just one of the two, it would be my M1A. Gabe Suarez has recently published a couple of articles about the "General Purpose" rifle (http://www.warriortalknews.com/2010/10/ ... art-2.html). It must be able to do everything from CQB to 800 yards. It doesn't have to be brilliant at any one thing, but it needs to be successfully usable for all things. The common denominator is caliber - something in a .30 cal with ballistics in the .308/.30-06/7.62x54 neighborhood. Ammo must be commonly available, which reduces the value of the russian round. Good candidates include the M1A (which I have), the AR10, the FAL, the HK91, the G3, the Saiga .308, the PSL. It should have good iron sights, and be able to mount a scope - NOT in the scout configuration. Suarez's response to the weight of the rifle question is basically: "quite whining. War is hard. Get stronger." Easier said than done, as I'm learning for myself.

connectme3504 wrote:

74novaman wrote:So far, I'm the only "AK variants only" vote. Thats interesting.

I'm with you. AK only for me. .223 is too small.

ARs in 7.62x39 are available.... not to mention ARs in 7.62x51 NATO if "bigger" is what you're lookin' for.... I'm just sayin'...

ARs only, 4 of them so far. I expect reliability AND accuracy out of my rifles, no matter what they are. Our ARs provide both. If I need reliability and a heavier caliber, well then, that's when I go to the M1A. I'm sure the commit gun is fine as far as reliability is concerned, but I'm not convinced that the accuracy is there. And before anyone suggests the Dragunov as an alternative, official ComBloc specs only required 4 MOA for that rifle.