|
Post by eddiewouldclearhot on May 12, 2014 21:23:57 GMT -5
Travor makes a TON of sense logistics wise, and the bull pup design might have some transferable skills.
My recommendation is to just buy them all when you get here : )
|
|
|
Post by omnivorous on May 13, 2014 0:27:49 GMT -5
I'd have to 3rd that recommendation for a Tavor. If you have however many years of experience with a bullpup configuration rifle, you'd probably want to stick with a similar design. You'd have similar handling, you'd just have to get used to the Tavor's controls. Not to mention all of the the bullpup habits you've developed, you wouldn't have to worry about forgetting. Tavors' use damn near every AR platform magazine and 5.56 ammo, that won't be a problem for stateside resupply. If you have a concern about parts and resupply, you could just by some extras and leave them cached with some good friends and family. A .300 AAC Blackout conversion kit is probably more likely to happen in the near future, than a 7.62x39mm. Especially, since the 5.45x39mm conversion fell through. I've been eye-ing the Tavor as a trunk gun/SHTF rifle, the best one I've seen yet, IMHO, for whenever the funds for one would permit.
|
|
|
Post by thefallguy on May 13, 2014 7:02:29 GMT -5
I started out with AK's and eventually switched to AR's. Here's my 2 cents concerning the most common comparisons between the two platforms, for what it's worth:
Controls: The only real advantage in the AK platform is the ease at which you can get someone up to speed on the controls (manual of arms) if they have limited time/interest in training. That's pretty much it. If the user is willing to devote the time and effort, I find the ergonomics and manual of arms for the AR platform to be superior, especially if you have had much training with handguns.
Reliability: The supposed legendary reliability of the AK is mostly wishful thinking in my experience; I have seen them jam from having crud in the magazine, have failures to extract, and broken casings stuck in the chamber, along with a hammer that wouldn't drop with enough force to set off a primer because it had too much grit in the trigger group. All machines break or malfunction when they are neglected and abused. That having been said, neither my AK's or AR's have ever experienced a malfunction during multiple competitions or training classes, even though they were exposed to lots of mud and dirt, and high rates of fire (I saw several others' guns go down in the same conditions). Malfunctions happen, but quality components, preventative care and maintenance go a long way, regardless of platform.
Ammunition (don't worry, it is not a direct performance comparison): While the 7.62 and 5.45 ammo are cheaper in bulk, the bi-metal construction of the bullets make them pretty much suck for very much other than barrier penetration. Agree or disagree, that has been my experience. You can get actual hunting/defensive rounds in 7.62x39 now, but they are just as expensive as everything else, so the cost advantage goes away. As far as an AK in 5.56, I like the idea, but I don't have any experience on them - there were a lot of complaints on-line about feeding issues with the NATO round in the AK platform when I was into AK's so I stayed away from them. I suspect that a higher quality rifle than the many cheaply built Romanian AKS littering the scene at the time might fair much better, but that is purely speculation on my part. The guys at Warrior Talk were huge advocates of the AK platform and they said to avoid 5.56 versions like the plague, even in the higher quality builds.
Accuracy: AK's themselves are a lot more accurate than most people give them credit for, but I find AR's much easier to get hits with at longer distances (whether that matters or not for your intended use is entirely up to you to decide). I think the sighting system is the real limiting factor with them (aside from trajectory and range estimation issues of the 7.62x39 round). The short radius notch and post, while fast to aim, takes a lot of concentration to get good accurate hits if you are trying to achieve "surgical precision". You can fix that with optics, but the options are somewhat limited, especially if you want to co-witness your iron sights.
It may sound like I don't like the AK platform much, but that is not the case. I never would have switched to the AR if it wasn't for commonality of parts and ammo. Now that I have used both, I much prefer the AR. It just makes more sense to me. The TAVOR sounds like it might be a good choice for you, but I have never even handled one, so I'm out of my depth there.
|
|
|
Post by Hawkeye on May 13, 2014 7:59:52 GMT -5
I remembered last night that I had completely forgot to mention one other option..... If you like the AK style operation and such, you may want to look at the Sig 556 Classic and Sig 556 SWAT. AK style operation, with much better trigger, sights, accuracy, etc... and takes pretty much any AR magazine. If you also want to have a 7.62x39 option, and maintain the same platform, the Sig 556R would be a natural fit. Early on (a few years ago) there were a few issues with this series. However, it appears that over the last year or so now, they've really got them dialed in right and current offerings are good to go. Honestly, if I weren't so heavily in on the AR side, and were just starting out, I'd give these a serious look. If I were independently wealthy, I'd add these to the safe with my AR's right now, along with a Tavor, and be a happy man.
|
|
|
Post by panzer0170 on May 13, 2014 8:40:02 GMT -5
Noted! Will have to have a look when I'm over in July.
I was super interested with the Tavor, but part of my mindset is commonality between 'buddies'. The more I think about it being individually effective is probably more important, and I suppose that's where the strengths of the Tavor will lie for me. Definitely considering and reconsidering all platforms. I shall have to do yet more investigating! On the plus side I have a nice peli-case already set aside that's Tavor sized (previously used for work, SA80), and I reckon it'd make an excellent truck and HD gun, as well as all round rifle. It has it's limitations, notably right hand corners, but I think the points made about familiarity are very good ones.
|
|
|
Post by panzer0170 on May 13, 2014 10:31:29 GMT -5
And to my next question; 16.5 or 18"? Difference is 200fps or thereabouts, and a bayonet lug on the 18". I DO like bayonets, but ignoring that, at what distance is that 200fps less of muscle velocity going to start having a difference to ballistics or penetration/effectiveness?
|
|
|
Post by Hawkeye on May 13, 2014 11:43:56 GMT -5
16"
Look at it this way. At what point does a bullets velocity drop low enough that it wont penetrate at least half of a human body. That's its "effective" range to me.
|
|
|
Post by USMC0331 on May 13, 2014 12:11:37 GMT -5
What velocity is that for a 77gr ? PS> the digs are severely ovegased from what I've seen. Not a good candidate for a can most likely. Spell checked by iPhone
|
|
|
Post by UnforseenWeather on May 13, 2014 14:48:24 GMT -5
Personal opinion follows: 18". I'll take every FPS I can get.
|
|
|
Post by panzer0170 on May 13, 2014 15:03:07 GMT -5
This is part of the reason I like bullpups = 20 inch barrelled SA80 is approx the same overall length as an M4. But then there's this whole idea of getting the SHORTEST RIFLE EVER, whilst not having to pay all the tax ever, and ask permission to go over state lines etc...
|
|
|
Post by UnforseenWeather on May 13, 2014 18:31:21 GMT -5
True- it all goes back to what *your* intended role for the rifle is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2014 19:31:23 GMT -5
The AK is an Infantry rifle. The AR is a rifleman's rifle.
|
|
|
Post by Erick on May 13, 2014 19:56:49 GMT -5
I also think 16 inch is the sweet spot for the AR. It long enough to give our bullets all the oomph they need while offering a significant handling advantage over the traditional 20 inch rifle.
|
|
|
Post by USMC0331 on May 13, 2014 22:50:05 GMT -5
The only reason to go 18" is for the Rifle length gas system in my book but you give up too much maneuverability for me. For <300 I like (except for the $200.00 tax stamp) my 12.5" with a simple dot on top. For >300 a 16" will do everything you need. 200FPS is nothing!
|
|
|
Post by thefallguy on May 14, 2014 4:36:53 GMT -5
To play the Devil's Advocate, besides the slightly flatter trajectory that makes range estimation a little less critical, that extra barrel length gives M193 the velocity it needs to allow fragmentation for an additional 50 yards. That's not a bad trade out for 4" of length, depending on your situation (ie if you are in a rural setting in which you don't anticipate getting in and out of vehicles constantly, or you are employing the rifle primarily as a DMR). As far as maneuverability is concerned, even a 20" barreled AR isn't that different in overall length from an 18" barreled Remington 870, which a lot of folks think is an excellent CQC weapon. In a bullpup configuration in which the extra length is even less of an impact, I would absolutely opt for the 20" barrel. 'Just some food for thought.
|
|