OT Basic firearms questions

BillTheCat

BillTheCat

Joined
May 21, 2002
Messages
496
With all the enthusiasm the Forumites are displaying about the fall of the AWB, your motivating me toward purchasing some firearms :) Knowing practically nothing on the topic, some basic questions come to mind. Specifically, regarding the AK-47 and the Makarov.

Who makes the highest quality AK-47? Are they all 7.62x39 mm and is that the same as .223 caliber?

Likewise, who makes the highest quality Makarov?

Lastly a AWB question. Even though the AWB prohibited high capacity magazines/weapons, if you already owned one, you could continue to take it the range and shoot it, right?
 
IMHO, the highest quality AK 47 was the Polytech Legend. Made in China, milled receiver, an excellent firearm. Lots of other AK's are of the "stamped" variety. That doesn't mean they are any less effective however.

The AK fires a 7.62 mm round. The .223 (civilian name) is a 5.56 mm round. They are not interchangeable.

I have no experience with the Makarov so no help there.

The AWB prevented the manufacture of high cap mags. If you owned a pre ban mag you could use it at the range. Pre ban mags could be bought and sold also.

Hope this helps.

Semp
 
I have a Russian made Makarov that I like.

Mine is a single stack mag in .380.

I recommend getting the Pearce grips (shown) for it.

They also come in larger staggered stacked mag and in 9mm Kurtz.
 
Not to be argumentative, but while x39 and .308 may have the same base(don't have any here to check), .308 has a straight walled case up until the neck, while x39 has a slightly tapered case(Reason why FAL mags are straight, but AK mags have to be curved).

Personally I'd put the FInnish Valmets at top of the AK weapons, but they aren't fully parts interchangable with other AKs(course, neither are lots of other AKs). My choice of those easily available and reasonably priced would probably be a Polytech, a Bulgarian, or one of a new one from Arsenal USA. Basically any AK will serve you well,t hough i personally avoid the Romanians (SAR-1, SAR-2, SAR-3, WASR) and anything that says Hesse/Vulcan on it. Even these will most likely work for you, just lower levels of fit/finish.
 
There is an AK manufacturer out of Vegas that produces the nicest AK's I've seen that are currently produced. Plus there are several small shops out there that will produce a customer AK for you.

I have a decent Romanian SAR that will be getting some goodies when I have some cash. First things will be a '74 Flash suppressor, and a soviet steel folding stock.
 
Theoretically, East German Makarovs are the best. They bring a premium.

All Maks are good, though. 9x18mm is easy to find at less than $.10/round.

At least some of the 7.62x39mm ammo out there uses .311 caliber bullets (same caliber as the British .303), instead of the American .308 caliber that the .308 and .30-06 use. To be clear, I am using caliber to mean diameter, in this context.

John, bleary eyed and hoping he's intelligible
 
I like these guys for Kalashnikovs: http://www.globaltrades.com/

and agree that the workmanship on East German Maks is very good. I have more than one EG and a Chinese Mak. I am not a fan of DA triggers on pistols, but the EG Maks are not bad. There is room for improvement in the sights and I like XS Sights, formerly Ashley Express: http://xssights.com/
Installation of their front sight (in a Mak) requires a dovetail cut in the slide which runs about $50. To get the most out of a low energy round like 9x18mm or .380 my favorite is RBCD, who recently introduced a 9x18mm load: http://www.rbcd.net/

Here are the XS sights on the Mak. Very easy front sight to pick up quickly.
eg_mak.jpg
 
I would wait a few months- boy, am I gonna be in trouble if Kerry gets in and extends the ban!! Global Trades- I don't know. I've read both good and bad. Perhaps the bad was a run in the past.

Regarding AK's; everyone wants a milled reciever. This is better. However, the armies of the world figured out that for the range and power of the cartridge a milled reciever was costly and served little usefull purpose.

Polytech legends are expensive. I doubt they will ever be cheap.
Go to AR15.com and check out the AK section. There are guys there that know more about AK's than the BATF.


munk
 
There are 3 commonly confused and not interchangeable pistol calibers.

1) 9x17 Browning aka 9mmK or 380 acp - bullet diameter 355/356

2) 9x18 Makarov aka 9.3x18 ( seldom used but more properly descriptive ) - bullet diameter 364/365

3) 9x19 Luger, Parabellum, NATO, etc. Requires locked breech as a rule. Also bullet diameter of 355/356

A fourth round supposedly inspired the Makarov. It was the pre-war 9x18 Ultra or postwar 9x18 Police. It was an attempt to stretch the performance envelope of blow-back pistols to it's practicable limit.

The 380 acp or 9x17 produces about 200 ft. lbs muzzle energy from a 3.5" to 4" barrel. So does the standard pressure 38 special out of a 2" bbl. snub.

9x18 Makarov is suposed to put out a bit more energy than the 380. There's more difference between loadings of the various Maks and 380s then between the two different calibers. So they are effectively equal but NOT interchangeable chamberings.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

A) 5.56x45 NATO aka 223 Rem. Offshoot of the 222 Rem and the 222 Rem Magnum. Astual bullect diameter 223/224. Slight change in cartridge dimensions but equivalent capacity to the 222 Mag. Much like a shrunken 30-06. Developed for ball powder and with slower twist barrel to be unstable. Though twist was tightened, frangibility from bullet cannelure served to improve stopping power. Later loads with heavier slugs did not tumble as well.

B) 7.62x39 Russian. Rimless shortened case as compared to 7.62x54R Russian. 308 diameter bullet. Short case with very fat base compared to length. Offshoot of 7.92x33 German cartridge. Debuted in the SKS as M43 round, later chambered for the Kalashnikov.

C) 5.45x39, also referred to as 5.45x40. Necked down version of 7.62x39 case. Russian copy of 223, only on their previous intermediate power case. Bullet diameter smaller than the 223. Shorter case with fatter base. Also sometimes referred to as the 220 Russian. Developed with spitzer bullet with unfilled nose, rear half of slug filled so it would tumble. Debuted in the AK-74

D) 7.62x51 aka 308 Win. Shortened 30-06 case but loaded with new powder to equal the military loading of the 30-06.

------------------------------------------------------------------

380 vs Mak - tie in performance. 380 availability may be more common. Mak ammo much cheaper.

5.56x45 NATO vs 5.45x39 Russian - The 223 is more common in availability. the Russian should be very cheap in price if/when available. The kicker in this is the old 7.62x39 when loaded with soft points instead of military ball beats the others in energy and ability to do damage, and it's now available everywhere cheaply.
 
really like those makarovs......nice one Rick!
 
In my experience, Arsenal brand AK clones are the best quality (assembled and fitted in America with Bulgarian parts). They come in 7.62x39 caliber and 5.45x(?), the latter being a very small and light round akin to the 5.56mm NATO or .223 Remington. Remember that the Kalashnikov was originally designed around the 7.62x39 round, and that the 5.45 is just the ComBloc's answer to NATO's 5.56, both being rounds designed primarily to wound rather than to kill, so as to cause more of a burden on the enemy and consume more of their resources. If you want a round to put your target down and keep it down, look elsewhere.

Having said that, with regard to both Kalashnikov's and Makarov's, these two designs were intended to produce a reliable weapon on the crudest and most basic of machinery and tooling, by unskilled, disabled peasants with low IQ's and no education in a sweat shop environment. That being the case, although a Bulgarian AK is made with much more precision than a Chinese MAK90, they are both as reliable as can be, again, due to the design. Same goes for Mak's. I agree East German Mak's are the finest (taken as a whole), but I think Bulgarian Mak's are the most prevelant right now and therefore the best deal. You can't go wrong with any Mak from anywhere. They are awesome! One more thing about AK's: Milled receivers are much heavier than stamped receivers. Some argue that the milled receivers will last longer. Probably so, but either one will outlast you and your kids, so the extra durability argument is a moot point. All things being equal, I'd go with a stamped receiver and save a few bucks to boot.
 
You have a lot of good information in your post. Sadly, you undermine your credibility with this statement:
both being rounds designed primarily to wound rather than to kill, so as to cause more of a burden on the enemy and consume more of their resources.
Click to expand...

1. This is an "armchair quarterbacking" answer that someone thought up after the round was designed. The 5.56x45mm was designed for several reasons:
a. Most rounds were dramatically overpowered for what they needed to do, which was determined to be engaging enemy troops at up to 300 meters;
b. To allow more controllable automatic fire from rifles, which was not possible with the 7.62x51 and 7.62x64mm American rounds;
c. To allow more rounds to be carried, encouraging troops to fire, which was a doctrine developed after studies showed troops often withheld fire even when faced with the enemy.

2. If you have shot things with the 5.56x45mm, you might change your mind. Personally, I would prefer a larger caliber (in this context, this means a wider bullet) for large game, but some swear by the .223 on deer, as the wounds are typically horrific. This is the case even with the old M193 55 grain rounds, and is even more the case when used with good expanding ammunition.

3. The sound arguments against use of the .223/5.56x45mm deal with penetration of "cover" and range. These are legitimate arguments in favor of a heavier and more powerful round, and will have to be examined carefully by the potential user in light of his own anticipated needs.

John, doesn't like M16 family, but not because of caliber. :rolleyes:
 
Spectre, thanks for reminding me; apparently I totally forgot to establish my credibility in the first place. You clearly think the 5.56mm was NOT designed primarily to wound, which must mean you think it was designed to kill. There are American soldiers all over Afghanistan and Iraq right now who would bitterly disagree with you. Our Special Forces aren't fielding the 6.5 Grendel and the 6.8 SPC because the 5.56 is just too deadly. And it isn't because the 5.56 won't go through a wall first and then kill them, or because the bad guys were out of range of their M4's; it's because they hit these guys with their M4's and they keep coming, just like in Mogadishu.

And look: I still didn't establish my credibility.
 
The 'wound' argument comes from observation after the fact- it was not neccesary in many cases to dispatch, but to render inoperative. I doubt the .223 was designed to wound only, but once with us, that became obvious, especially with 55 gr rounds. I agree with Spectre that the designers probably thought it would kill better than it did.


Spectre, there are many high perfomance .223 in heavier weights available for hunting deer, but I don't use them. Those who do are in a minority. That's a personal choice, but there are far far better rounds for deer and other thin skinned game, and using a .223 carefully under appropriate field conditions does not prove it a great military round under uncontrolled conditions.

<<<Sadly, you undermine your credibility with this statement>>> Spectre to Xhead

Now, Spectre, why do I get the feeling you're not very sad at all?!!! LOL

XHEAD- I don't care what credentials you carry, posts eventually prove out the person. Anything else just becomes an ad for a new Chevy anyway.


munk
 
LOL-new Chevy ad...geez. :)

No, I was serious about the credibility thing. I'm sad to hear urban legend repeated as fact, and just because something may not-or may be perceived to not- fill its designed function, doesn't create a totally different raison d' etre. (While we're at it, I'm sick of hearing about how so-and-so nation designed its rifles to be able to fire US ammo, but not vise versa. I've heard this BS for years, and AFAIK, the ONLY weapon so designed
is not a rifle, but a crew-served weapon, the Warsaw Pact 82mm mortar.)

The only credibility that would matter, in this instance, would be yours if you were either a creative force on the original weapon or ammo design team, or if you had established the doctrine. If you are either of these, I am amazed and awed to meet you. You're saying there are current soldiers who would argue with me about what the .223 was designed to do? :p (Which is altogether different that what it may or may not do.)

From

1959...

Fearing the confusion of so many "Triple Deuce" nomenclatures, the .222 Special is renamed the .223 Remington...

Subsequently, Cooper-Macdonald, Inc receives its first advance payment from Colt to begin promoting the AR-10 and AR-15. During the following "world" tour (primarily Asia), Robert W. Macdonald finds that there is very tepid interest in the AR-10. In contrast, the smaller AR-15 is an immediate hit. ...

Ordnance Technical Intelligence publishes "Wound Ballistics Tests of the Soviet 7.62mm Bullet."

May: The final report of the CDEC trials, "Rifle Squad Armed with a Lightweight High-Velocity Rifle," is released. It projects that a 5-7 man squad armed with AR-15 rifles would have a higher number of hits and kills than the then current 11 man squad armed with M14 rifles...

1962...

Gene Stoner joins Cadillac Cage to begin work on the 7.62mm NATO Stoner 62 system.
...
July: Operational testing of the AR-15 in Vietnam ends. ARPA releases "Test of ArmaLite Rifle, AR-15, Report of Task 13A." The report concludes that the AR-15 is superior to the M2 Carbine, and better suited for Vietnamese soldiers than the M1 Garand, the M1918 BAR, and the Thompson SMG. Vietnamese troops and their US advisors reportedly considered the AR-15 "the best 'all around' shoulder weapon" then in use. The report also includes graphic details of the .223 Remington's terminal effects. The results are typically described as "explosive." ARPA recommends that the AR-15 be adopted as the basic weapon for all South Vietnamese forces.

You were saying? Now, as I pointed out previously, there are legitimate reasons to consider other calibers, but inefficacy of the .223 at short to medium range is not one of them. We also have reports of multiple hits with heavier weapons on bogies, too.

John
 
Did you notice:

>> It projects that a 5-7 man squad armed with AR-15 rifles would have a higher number of hits and kills than the then current 11 man squad armed with M14 rifles>>>

Do you think they thought that because of a); estimating medium to short yardage, and b) an average soldier could fire the AR15 quicker and perhaps more accurately with less training than the .308? M14? I wonder if they also estimated auto fire from the AR15 would be more lethal than it ultimately was?

I've looked at wound channel reports too, and I know ball 308 often penetrates and leaves a fairly clean wound.

>>>>>>>>>

I guess I'm thinking in the hands of a trained shooter I'd prefer the 308- without question.

munk
 
munk, if you look through all the reports on the link, it's clear that the controllability, high rate of fire, and great ammo capacity, led leadership to believe that fewer men could kill more enemy. There is reference to wounding capability, but it's obvious in context that terminal effect is being discussed, not some silly idea of wound vs. kill.

For all around usage, I do prefer the 7.62- I like the FAL- but for stopping bogies at close range, 5.56 is fine.

J
 
if you look through all the reports on the link, it's clear that the controllability, high rate of fire, and great ammo capacity, led leadership to believe that fewer men could kill more enemy. There is reference to wounding capability, but it's obvious in context that terminal effect is being discussed, not some silly idea of wound vs. kill.>>>>>>>> Spectre

For me at least, this is redundant. I thought you'd already made this point about the designer's intended lethality.
My questions were designed to undermine the designers judgment of what was going to work and why. The designer's were overly optimistic about the 223's effectivness. Full auto has not worked effectively for the AR. They've removed that capacity in many branches. At longer range or shorter range, the 223 is not a .308

But you sure get to carry a lot more ammo with the 223
This reminds me of a Cooper story. He went to a Marine base and fired the poodle killer. He did very very well on the firing course.
"I thought you didn't like this weapon." He was asked.
"I don't particularly, but I never said I couldn't use it."

Our military gave up the .45 One reason at least, was because it was felt with minimal training few could do well, or well enough. I'm sure the AR is easier to fire well than a M14 without enough practise.

munk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top