wondering which weapon to have

[perfectshot1221]

i was wondering what i would be best off with for an assault or sub machine gun.im sure ill have to use the usp45 for my sidearm but not sure what to have as a main. plz reply

[304REP!]

M4 sopmod with acog scope and silencer to start

[mos19k]

It depends on your area and what you want to use the weapon for. In general I would prefer an assault weapon, personally I have an AK47 M70 U/F. I like this setup because it serves multiple purposes in this configuration. I have the option of a compact weapon with the stock folded or a standard rifle with it extended. The round, 7.62x39, is a proven round that is more than powerful enough to bring down any North American animal including man. The AK is renowned for it's reliability and, at least with mine, it's accurate enough. By accurate enough I mean I can hit a human size target at 300 yards. If I need to hit something further away I have a long range rifle for that duty. Some folks prefer the AR system, this is also a great weapon platform. Another option many people like is to go with a lever action rifle in 30-30 . Good round and reliable feed system. Basically you should try to shoot as many different rifles as you can and see which one meets your needs.

[jd1911]

the important thing to remember is use a weapon you are very proficent and comfortable with and as my dad says practice practice practice

[nathangdad]

One big drawback to full auto is that it really gives away your position.
Also, you can burn up ammo you cannot replace in a time of crisis.
Personally, I believe the better choice is the most accurate gun you can purchase mounted with a high quality scope. I would want concealment and distance between me and a target in a survival situaiton. For close proximity defense I would prefer a 12 gauge cylinder bore.
However, this is a forum and others will post differing opinions.

[Cyrano]

Ignoring the issue of the legality of the full-auto subgun (and as noted its ability to burn through great quantities of ammo really, really fast), one thing you have to consider is the limited range of the pistol cartridges they are intended to shoot. Dad carried a Thompson during World War II and told me once its effective, accurate range was about the same as the distance from home plate to the Green Monster at Fenway Park. Within that range it was lethal, but that's only a little more than 100 yards.

In a survival situation you need to consider a number of factors for your survival gun. I've read some threads here that seem to indicate not everyone understands the realities of a disaster where society breaks down. Everyone has a favorite variation, from EMP frying all the electronics and dumping us back to the pre-transistor 1950s at best, to some sort of pandemic, to an invasion by another country or terrorists, to the End of Days, to The Night of the Living Dead. What folks don't consider, or perhaps don't think all the way through is more precise, is how little it would take to break a major interlock that keeps our culture alive and trigger such a scenario. A lot of folks presume that vehicles will still run after it hits the fans, and plan their bug-out load-outs accordingly. I feel this is an unwarranted assumption. I'm going back to World War II for an example.

Donald Burgess reported in Currahee! that when he was loaded down for the drop into Normandy, he was carrying so much weight he literally could not climb into the C-47 that would fly him into combat. Between his two 'chutes, his Thompson, his .45, about five magazines for each, four frag grenades, two smoke grenades, an antitank mine, a couple of blocks of explosive for taking down pillboxes, spare ammo, a gas mask, shelter half, blanket, spare socks and underwear, poncho, parachutist's jacket, C rations for 3 days, D rations, first aid kit, canteens, water, helmet, combat knife, parachutist's knife, marker panels, his pack, and a whole lot of other stuff that does not come readily to mind, his gear weighed more than he did. He had so little mobility when he was saddled up, someone else had to fasten his parachute's bellyband. It took two Army Air Force crewmen to lift him through the door; and when he was in the plane, he found the most comfortable position was for him to kneel in front of the bucket seat and let it take the weight of the gear on his back.

The first thing he did when he hit the ground in Normandy was draw and cock his .45. The second thing he did was dump his main and reserve 'chutes. And the first chance he got after he linked up with other men of the 101st Airborne, he ditched about half the crap the powers-that-be at headquarters had decreed the jumpers were to bring with them. It simply weighed too much to carry and still be able to fight.

What does that story have to do with a survival gun? Just this. How much weight can YOU carry? And of that weight, how much of it can you afford to devote to your rifle and its ammo?

I can agree with your selection of the semi-auto, street-legal AK-47 as your Survival Wand of Bang. Mikhail Kalashnikov's masterpiece is battle-proven to work when conditions are incredibly bad, with little to no maintenance, in almost any weather. (I've never read how well they really function in subzero arctic cold; but as a Russian, Kalashnikov surely built it so it would work when serving with that legendary Russian officer, General Winter.) As noted, the 7.62 x 39 ComBloc cartridge is powerful enough to take almost any North American animal at reasonable hunting ranges. Heaven knows it's a proven man-killer round, and the ammo is always easily had because it's inexpensive and popular.

My reservation about the AK is more psychological than mechanical. That big 30-round curved magazine, from what I have seen at the range, encourages people to waste ammo. In a survival situation you cannot afford to waste ammo. You cannot count on resupply. You have to plan your survival tactics on the assumption that what you are carrying is what you have to make it through the situation and/or make it to safety or your refuge, period.

The survival rifle that lives in my SHTF bag in my car is a Henry AR-7 with 250 rounds of .22 LR ammo. That's because my bug-out bag is aimed at making it home if the balloon goes up when I am away from the house. If a situation began to develop that looked like Red Dawn/The Day After/The Stand/apocalypse/zombie movie, I'd move my SKS and 100 rounds of ammo in stripper clips into the car as well and accept the extra load of 10 pounds or so. I can afford to do that because packed for storage my bug-out bag is only 40 pounds and in use, more like 30. 40 pounds total is my personal limit; I'm not as young as I was.

The reason I prefer the SKS to the AK for SHTF is that Simonov designed it as a battle rifle, not an assault rifle like the AK. In the assault, the ability to spray ammo downrange full-auto at the enemy, thus keeping his head down while you attack, is priceless. In a survival situation where you have to make each shot count, the spray-and-pray assault rifle mindset will leave you toting a wood and metal club in short order. Survival is an extension of the battle scenario, not the assault/attack scenario. The 10 round nondetachable magazine of the SKS automatically steers you to the idea of aiming carefully and making your shots count.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not condemning the Ak-47 as your survival rifle. It's a good firearm for the purpose, maybe better than the SKS in terms of reliability. The one thing I would do concerning it is lose the hi-cap mags in favor of a bunch of lower-cap mags, to get your mind into the idea of spending your rounds wisely in a SHTF situation.

[mos19k]

Originally Posted by Cyrano

Don't get me wrong. I'm not condemning the Ak-47 as your survival rifle. It's a good firearm for the purpose, maybe better than the SKS in terms of reliability. The one thing I would do concerning it is lose the hi-cap mags in favor of a bunch of lower-cap mags, to get your mind into the idea of spending your rounds wisely in a SHTF situation.

Sorry I have to disagree with your logic but agree with your mindset. Shooting off an entire magazine isn't the rifles fault but the shooters. This same shooter would fire off all ten rounds in his SKS just like he would the thirty from the AK, it's as you stated, "a mindset". I have two SKS's and would have no problem relying on it as my main rifle. My Wife prefers the SKS to the AK or the Mini-14, it's a great rifle. Personally I would prefer to have a high capacity mag at my disposal for several reasons, one is the fact I can carry fewer magazines of hi-cap as opposed to low cap for the same amount of ammo. If you do find yourself in a firefight you'll be happy to have thirty rounds in your weapon instead of ten, this doesn't mean you just spray and pray, it means you aim and fire thirty rounds if need be.

[perdidochas]

I would recommend a .308 or .30/06 bolt action rifle with low-power scope (or maybe a .303 or .308 Lee-Enfield). Your best bet is sniping and keeping concealed. Assault rifles/SMGs are for units.

[big boomer]

The man with a 308 can pick off the one with a 7.62x39 because of increased range. I have hit 800 meter targets with a 308 (M-60) I don't think I could hit with a 7.62x39.

[squirrelbaster]

Originally Posted by Cyrano

Ignoring the issue of the legality of the full-auto subgun (and as noted its ability to burn through great quantities of ammo really, really fast), one thing you have to consider is the limited range of the pistol cartridges they are intended to shoot. Dad carried a Thompson during World War II and told me once its effective, accurate range was about the same as the distance from home plate to the Green Monster at Fenway Park. Within that range it was lethal, but that's only a little more than 100 yards.

In a survival situation you need to consider a number of factors for your survival gun. I've read some threads here that seem to indicate not everyone understands the realities of a disaster where society breaks down. Everyone has a favorite variation, from EMP frying all the electronics and dumping us back to the pre-transistor 1950s at best, to some sort of pandemic, to an invasion by another country or terrorists, to the End of Days, to The Night of the Living Dead. What folks don't consider, or perhaps don't think all the way through is more precise, is how little it would take to break a major interlock that keeps our culture alive and trigger such a scenario. A lot of folks presume that vehicles will still run after it hits the fans, and plan their bug-out load-outs accordingly. I feel this is an unwarranted assumption. I'm going back to World War II for an example.

Donald Burgess reported in Currahee! that when he was loaded down for the drop into Normandy, he was carrying so much weight he literally could not climb into the C-47 that would fly him into combat. Between his two 'chutes, his Thompson, his .45, about five magazines for each, four frag grenades, two smoke grenades, an antitank mine, a couple of blocks of explosive for taking down pillboxes, spare ammo, a gas mask, shelter half, blanket, spare socks and underwear, poncho, parachutist's jacket, C rations for 3 days, D rations, first aid kit, canteens, water, helmet, combat knife, parachutist's knife, marker panels, his pack, and a whole lot of other stuff that does not come readily to mind, his gear weighed more than he did. He had so little mobility when he was saddled up, someone else had to fasten his parachute's bellyband. It took two Army Air Force crewmen to lift him through the door; and when he was in the plane, he found the most comfortable position was for him to kneel in front of the bucket seat and let it take the weight of the gear on his back.

The first thing he did when he hit the ground in Normandy was draw and cock his .45. The second thing he did was dump his main and reserve 'chutes. And the first chance he got after he linked up with other men of the 101st Airborne, he ditched about half the crap the powers-that-be at headquarters had decreed the jumpers were to bring with them. It simply weighed too much to carry and still be able to fight.

What does that story have to do with a survival gun? Just this. How much weight can YOU carry? And of that weight, how much of it can you afford to devote to your rifle and its ammo?

I can agree with your selection of the semi-auto, street-legal AK-47 as your Survival Wand of Bang. Mikhail Kalashnikov's masterpiece is battle-proven to work when conditions are incredibly bad, with little to no maintenance, in almost any weather. (I've never read how well they really function in subzero arctic cold; but as a Russian, Kalashnikov surely built it so it would work when serving with that legendary Russian officer, General Winter.) As noted, the 7.62 x 39 ComBloc cartridge is powerful enough to take almost any North American animal at reasonable hunting ranges. Heaven knows it's a proven man-killer round, and the ammo is always easily had because it's inexpensive and popular.

My reservation about the AK is more psychological than mechanical. That big 30-round curved magazine, from what I have seen at the range, encourages people to waste ammo. In a survival situation you cannot afford to waste ammo. You cannot count on resupply. You have to plan your survival tactics on the assumption that what you are carrying is what you have to make it through the situation and/or make it to safety or your refuge, period.

The survival rifle that lives in my SHTF bag in my car is a Henry AR-7 with 250 rounds of .22 LR ammo. That's because my bug-out bag is aimed at making it home if the balloon goes up when I am away from the house. If a situation began to develop that looked like Red Dawn/The Day After/The Stand/apocalypse/zombie movie, I'd move my SKS and 100 rounds of ammo in stripper clips into the car as well and accept the extra load of 10 pounds or so. I can afford to do that because packed for storage my bug-out bag is only 40 pounds and in use, more like 30. 40 pounds total is my personal limit; I'm not as young as I was.

The reason I prefer the SKS to the AK for SHTF is that Simonov designed it as a battle rifle, not an assault rifle like the AK. In the assault, the ability to spray ammo downrange full-auto at the enemy, thus keeping his head down while you attack, is priceless. In a survival situation where you have to make each shot count, the spray-and-pray assault rifle mindset will leave you toting a wood and metal club in short order. Survival is an extension of the battle scenario, not the assault/attack scenario. The 10 round nondetachable magazine of the SKS automatically steers you to the idea of aiming carefully and making your shots count.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not condemning the Ak-47 as your survival rifle. It's a good firearm for the purpose, maybe better than the SKS in terms of reliability. The one thing I would do concerning it is lose the hi-cap mags in favor of a bunch of lower-cap mags, to get your mind into the idea of spending your rounds wisely in a SHTF situation.

+1 i compleatly agree with this statement! good job!

[mos19k]

Originally Posted by big boomer

The man with a 308 can pick off the one with a 7.62x39 because of increased range. I have hit 800 meter targets with a 308 (M-60) I don't think I could hit with a 7.62x39.

How do you know the individual at 800 meters is a threat? We're not talking about uniformed combatants. At 800 meters you can't identify friend from foe without a uniform or prior knowledge of his where abouts. Depending on your location an 800 meter shot isn't feasible due to obstructions and terrain.
Each weapon has it's pluses and minuses, if the perfect weapon existed all of us would have it. 308 is an excellent round, the M14 is one of my favorite rifles but it has its disadvantages, weight and size being two of them. Pound for pound which one could you carry more of 308 or 7.62x39 (.223 if you use an AR). This doesn't make the other rifle better it just shows that everything is give and take. What is right for one person may not be the right choice for another. Each individual has to figure out what he intends to use his weapon for and find the appropriate weapon for that job. Above all else is getting a weapon that you can handle and to practice as much as you can with it.
I hope this didn't come off as insulting toward any weapon system, that wasn't my intention.

[wunhunglo]

In a time long past in another world I had an original AR10, an excellent piece of kit and of course it fired the 7.62 nato. Light to carry, and very accurate, with full auto capability! Pity it wasn't adopted more widely. That would be my first choice!

[oldjarhead]

One and one only dual purpose weapon with phenomenal knock down power at great distances ..the M-14 (original with select fire)

[wunhunglo]

Oldjarhead..too damned heavy! Selective fire AR10 was much lighter to carry & easier to control in a burst!


300px-Ar-10.jpg

[jmp8927]

Right now it would me my SKS because it's the only weapon I have suitable for it. If I had an AK-47, I'd ditch the SKS. The AK is lighter and its easier to carry ammo and the mage take less room than the annoying duck-bill SKS mags. An AK would be perfect for me because my vision doesn't allow me to take shots past 100 yards without optics. Maybe when I get new glasses/contacts I would go for more. But it a situation like this, you can't get new glasses/contacts.

[oldjarhead]

Perhaps, Wun, but much more rugged.
I don't care for plastic guns...difficult to shoot when the butt stock breaks off (seen that happen several times). Not to say I wouldn't like an AR-10 in my arsenal though.
Hell, at my age I ain't gonna be a carrying it far...just from one side of the bunker to the other.
The best survival weapon is one that shoots the same ammo as your enemy. I know what you're thinking...but at least you'd have a reasonable re-suppy of ammo. <smile>

[wunhunglo]

Originally Posted by oldjarhead

Perhaps, Wun, but much more rugged.
I don't care for plastic guns...difficult to shoot when the butt stock breaks off (seen that happen several times). Not to say I wouldn't like an AR-10 in my arsenal though.
The best survival weapon is one that shoots the same ammo as your enemy. I know what you're thinking...but at least you'd have a reasonable re-suppy of ammo. <smile>

Quite a few of our guys aquired the AR10's and nobody managed to break the butts, same-same with our FAL's though in that case the wood stocked model was more sought after. Our AR10's were 7.62nato and the other side tended to use AK's & SKS's so no ammo compatability!

[ArkansasHunter]

If you can afford an Ar_15 in a version apealing to you, I personaly think thats what you should get.
An AK cost less and is less acurate and how long will ammo be available for them in a SHTF situation if you don't stock pile a whole lot $$$$$.
The AR in 223 is what our Military use's, so the ammo may be a little bit easier to come by too.
Thats my thoughts and I'm stick'in to'em...A.H

[BaserRonin]

yeah, but nothing says "GO AWAY" like a full-auto mac 10 chambered in .45 ACP.

[mos19k]

I really do love these types of discussions because no one is ever right or ever wrong, it's all personal choice. My personal favorite weapon to fire when I was in the Army was the old "Grease Gun" M3. I cobbled mine together from several parts and it was reasonably accurate out to about 50 yards max, This gun was just so much fun and you felt confident that whatever you hit wasn't getting up. Would I want this gun as my primary rifle, no, it's to limited on it's uses.

As to using the same ammo as the enemy or as the military so you can get ammo from the battlefield I have a problem with. If you have to resort to getting ammo from the battlefield wouldn't there be rifles also? Something was firing that ammo. I still say that you should use whatever you feel comfortable with. I will add a slight exception to that. If you are part of a group, either family or friends that will be giving mutual support, you should have a common caliber for both rifles and pistols. What you make that caliber and which rifle fires it is up to you. This is a big advantage that the 7.62 NATO has, so many different rifles use this caliber, just about everyone can find a system that fires it.