doublegunshop.com - home Forums I want an AK47 and don't know anything about them

Thank you all for taking the trouble to answer my questions.

I have about decided on this one:

http://www.gunsamerica.com/917776385/AK4..._New_in_box.htm

A good choice Mike:
That ought to give you years of trouble free use.
Jim

The Thomson is a very heavy weapon; 10.8 lbs unloaded. the simpler M1A was slightly lighter at 10.6 lbs. vs the M4 at 6.36 lbs .
the trajectory of the 45 ACP is very poor and doesn't allow for engagement of targets with any precision past 100M. The M4/5.56 combo allows precision engagements well past 400 M with an ACOG.
It is easier to use the m4 for CQC than it is to try and use the Thompson for extended ranges.
Terminal ballistics are way different for both. the 45 has o ability to penetrate even level 3 body armor whereas the 556 in the M855 Ball has superior penetration.
The Thompson fires from an open bolt, has poor ergonomics and magazines that are a pain in the a$$ to load.
no real ability to mount any kind of optics or sot sight either.

the weight is brutal on the Thompson. the M4 is usually augmented with a dot sight and a light. even if that brings it up a pound and a half, add that to the Thompson and what do you have???
If I am humping anything other than a SAW (M249) or a 240 Bravo, Ill take the M4.
there have been developments in cartridges to do what you talk about. the 458 SOCOM and the 460 Bushmaster are two. but you trade magazine capacity and weight.

Brian:
My reference was to the 30cal M1 Carbine which weighs in at a little over 5lbs not the shortened M1 Garand which is much heavier.
The question asked above was related to close quarters combat and IMO that's where a sub machine or a compact carbine like the M1 really shines. Keep in mind that the Thompson was originally developed as a "trench Broom" ala WWI for clearing out trenches at very close range.
Assault rifles are a compromise between sub machine guns and full size battle rifles like the M1 or G43. The are NOT better choices than either in the role for which the original two were developed.
Intermediate and long range accuracy are not an issue at under 100 yards when your defending yourself against what I have to assume would be multiple charging attackers. In this day and age if caught in this type of situation I'd personally opt for a H&K MP5 or one of the other newer and more compact choices available.

I was going to leave the P90 out of this discussion because I suspect most of the members here are not familiar with it. However it in IMO state-of-the-art for a close combat scenario and apparently several other organizations including our own Secret Service agree. I have had some experience with these at my club and the amount of accurate and rapid gunfire they can lay down is truly impressive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_P90

N.B: I just realized I left this information out. There is a civilian semi-automatic version of this weapon called the PS90.

I would like to have an H&K MP7 for such scenarios. very nice and for under 200M its the $hit!

I concur on it being an excellent choice, a top tier piece. It is also very easy to convert to a pistol grip version with basic tools and inexpensive parts. Act fast as the importation of Russian Firearms may end soon due to the Russian aggression in the Ukraine.

With quality ammo and a Optical Sight you should be able to hang with a run of the mill AR15 to 250 yards for all practical purposes; 2 MOA should be possible.

I own a Saiga in 308 that I converted into a RPK clone I have been extremely happy with it. It will hang with my Garand with a Red Dot mounted on it. The two biggest detriments to accuracy in a Kalashnikov are the sights and crappy ammo.

Think of a Kalashnikov as a Garand with the Op Rod moved on top of the barrel, a magazine, and a safety lever from a Remington Model 8.

No tiny rings, springs, detents, or direct impingement gas "eating soup out of the toilet bowl" problems.

The M3 Submachine gun (.45ACP) had a curved barrel available to enable it to shoot around corners. This was intended for MOUT use. Since urban ops are avoided as much as possible, (see "Stalingrad" for the best example of why NOT to get involved in city fighting for political, rather than operational reasons) its hard to justify the cost of a weapon whose use is so specialized. The M3 was also issued to tank crews, and even my battalion (Bradley/Mechanized) still had a few during the First Gulf War. During a MOUT operation, explosives are of equal importance as a rifle, so just having a weapon you can spray a room with after chucking in the grenade is important. Since grenade/ammo consumption is high, weight is important, which illustrates the 5.56mm superiority over the .45ACP. You also have to still have medium range capability as well, so, another advantage of the AR series becomes apparent, especially in the shorter M4 configuration.

I'll reiterate a point I made earlier, that the quality of design of an AR far exceeds that of an AK, and if the prices were similar, (which they are) why would anyone consider an AK?

If anyone here collects M1 carbines, there's a Rockola on consignment at Simpson's LTD priced at less than a Grand..

Why ?

An Ak is simple, robust, and accurate enough for what it is made for.

Armalites are more accurate, more ergonomic, and easier to mount an Optic on.

I don't have the experience or knowledge to make that statement but it accurately describes my perception of the AK and explains what I find attractive about it.

Thanks again for all the information, advice, and comments. I did buy that gun I last linked to.

Would this ammo be suitable for the gun?

http://www.ammoman.com/762x39-wolf-performance-123-grain-fmj

I want the ammo that is most likely to be jam free. I am not particularly interested in accuracy - just a plinking gun. I will not use it for hunting.

Best,

Mike