Most reliable survival rifle possible? MOA of FAL

[alfred10]

Whats the MOA at 100 yards with a

DSA 16 inch:

DSA FAL regular size:

M1A Socom:

M1A match:

Arsenal AK 47:

Sig 556 full size:

I am looking to replace my AR with a more reliable survival rifle. Stuck between the FAL, Sig 556, Arsenal AK, or M1A.

[tedg]

I'd like an arguement please. Your topic asks "most reliable", but the body of your message seems to be asking which is the most accurate? I've allways thought the Ruger 10/22 makes a fine "survival rifle".

[gunnut1]

If you are looking for an extremely reliable survival rifle then I recommend the Springfield Scout M6.

If you want something bigger then there is no choice, as far as reliability goes, than the AK.

IN a survival situation, 4 inch groups are very acceptable. MOst anything you want to shoot has about a inch kill zone. The AK will work fine. Are you expecting an invasion of Hajis or Zombies?

[kiddsf]

In my very honest opinion, I think DSA full size or 18", and Arsenal AK will be your best choices.

DSA 18" and Arsenal AK can both do 2-3MOA. Yes, Arsenal AK47 like SGL21 can do about 2.5-3 MOA with a scope of course. DSA 18" can do about 2-3MOA also, but maybe better.

I had seen pictures and heard stories of SIG556 failures and breakages. Breakages like broken bolt, extractor, charging handle, bolt handle locking lever thingy were the breakages that I've seen and heard of people complaining.

M1A is a very reliable system, but harder to maintain than other choice IMO. Besides, I think for any 7.62x51 or .308cal weapon, it is better to get a 18", so pick the scout instead of SOCOM. But Springfield made M1a are made from cast receivers and a weak bolt, it might be not as good as a LRB M14 or the James River M14 from AIM surplus, b/c those are made from Forged receiver and other parts are all GI TRW parts.

[RT]

keep the AR. build a Fal. and learn to shoot them both. the weapon is only as good as the user.--a bb can kill you.~RT

[ANON]

Im sure there is a member who owns all those rifles and can answer your questions in a concrete manner. There are too many variables among individual rifles for one person's input to give you a valid answer. You would need a large sample size and use statistical methods to have an accurate and valid answer. This would be an expensive study that most on the files would gladly volunteer for.

Did you try the search feature? That can provide insight into similar posts already on the files.

My $.02 is the fal is the best combination of accuracy and reliability.

My arsenal ak is great but its range is limited compared to the fal because of the accuracy and ballistics of the x.39 round and ak platform. It does have faster follow up shots and is great fun hitting steel 200 yards and in. This ak is a slr95 with milled receiver.

I rarely shoot my fals at 100 yards. Most shooting is done at 300+yards. All barrel lengths should shoot fine at distance. My 16" fal hits steel as reliably as my 18 and 21". They wear 4x scopes. These rifles would be my go to if i had an emergency hunting trip come up.

It is my understanding that the m1a has the potential to be more accurate than the fal. The average rifle might not show much difference. Reliability shouldnt be an issue.

I have no experience with the mia or the sig. Just what i've gathered from posts and at the range.

I've heard reports that some are unhappy with sigs accuracy and some early ones had teething issues. Its a great refined ak platform so reliability should be among the best. I love my sig 522 tho for a .22lr.

You hafta decide Do you want a full power rifle round or a lesser round, that decision will narrow your list considerably. My reasoning is if I'm allowed one round each time i pull the trigger, its gonna hit as hard as possible, who needs follow up with a .308? If you don't go with .308, you are really just choosing which ak you want.

I would be happy with any rifle on your list but if i could only have one, it would be an 18'" fal w/glass. When you hold an fn fal, it s obvious it is built to take alot of abuse and go bang every time. Its not the best tool for every application by any stretch, but it can fulfill alot of different roles well. I would not pick my 16" fal for room clearing drills, but it could be done, just double up on the hearing protection.

[gunnut1]

I had seen pictures and heard stories of SIG556 failures and breakages. Breakages like broken bolt, extractor, charging handle, bolt handle locking lever thingy were the breakages that I've seen and heard of people complaining.

Imagine that! Not one of SIG's better efforts.

[nwobhm]

Weihrauch line of German made air rifles/pistols. 177 or 22

[FNfreak]

Chevy, Ford, Dodge....????

They are all Dinner Plate MOA out to 250yards with the AK being the least accurate but probably the MOST reliable. The difference between full size and 16" barrels doesn't really kick in until you start reaching out beyond 400-500yards+ .The FAL and M1's will reach out to Minute of MAN (MOM) accuracy w irons to roughly 500-600 yards with a practiced operator. (your front sight post is approxiamety 3-4 times as large as a torso at 600 yards!!)Your just lobbing rounds in a 8 foot cirle with the AK at that range. Never used a SIG so I can't comment. The FAL and AK have been used in huge numbers for several decades and are still going strong so reliablity isn't really an issue. The M1 platform is probaly just as reliable, it has just never been issued and used in the numbers or for the length of service as the other two...

tedg is correct, for 100 yards and under I'd use a .22LR or.22 magnum!

For the average guy shooting at "REALISTIC" distances...they are all good choices!

Your AR has advantages the others do not...every law enforcement, military, civilian para-military has one. There are probably 50 AR's within a 5 mile radius of you right now if you live in the "sticks" A few 1000 if your in Urban areas. So parts are plentiful, ammo is accessable....modern AR's are reliable if kept clean. better than a sling shot or a sharp stick anyday! The grass is not always greenier on the otherside of the fence!!!

[W.E.G.]

FAL

[kiddsf]

I guess it is also a good idea to know what kind of terrain is around your area?

[BIG 54R]

keep the AR...'specially if you are or plan to be married.
build a FAL...all men need a big stick!

[[486]]

Another vote for stick with the AR, build a FAL.

If your AR is unreliable then you're either doing something wrong or your rifle is out of spec. Clean the rifle whenever you drop it in mud, spend time in blowing sand, or every 1000 rounds, and lightly oil with a thin viscosity oil.

If you're already doing that, get a set of files and look for offending material. Found one rifle that the cam pin was cocked a little and was slowing down the bolt carrier to the point of jamming, 20 seconds with the file and now it is flawless reliability wise.

[garyd1961]

I am not an AR fan, I think they are a flawed design. A battle field weapon should be reliable even when dirty. I would chose the AK as a dependable does everything good enough weapon. The FAL coming in a very close second only because of its weight and size. Saying that I have a Ruger Mini 30 with a 3 by 9 scope that's a 1 MOA with Rem. UMC and has been very reliable so far.
Edit- I would not choose the Ruger over the AK or FAL but if it was the only weapon I had I wouldn't feel unarmed.

[Mark IV]

Originally posted by rtgunsmoke
keep the AR. build a Fal. and learn to shoot them both. the weapon is only as good as the user.--a bb can kill you.~RT

My man!

What's your AO? What's your terrain like? I live in Michigan, not too many long range shots (500+ yards), so my FAL and AR work well. Even though the AR is 5.56, it's probably the most accurate rifle of the bunch.

If you live in Utah with vast expanses of open land, get a Garand!

[brunop]

They're all the same - since they will all have you behind them pulling the trigger.

AKs won't even penetrate black pipe past 150 yards. Lots of target frames we use at the FAL Shoot have holes in the front of the pipe, and 'bulges' at the back. .308, .30-'06, x54R, etc. blow right through. Of course your target may not be wearing the oh-so-common black-pipe tactical vest...

If you are staying home, use the FAL. If you are going on walk about, take the AR and the extra ammo. Learn to shoot with irons.

Good luck, and

Peace.

[[486]]

Originally posted by brunop
Learn to shoot with irons.

Great piece of often overlooked advice.

[SWOHFAL]

This is Gecko45's cousin:

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/show....php?t=1239970

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/show....php?t=1240918

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/show....php?t=1217434

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/show....php?t=1240021

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/show....php?t=1221346

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/show....php?t=1232737

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/show....php?t=1231736

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/show....php?t=1227572

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/show....php?t=1228488

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/show....php?t=1226573

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/show....php?t=1226555

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/show....php?t=1226547

[W.E.G.]

Originally posted by SWOHFAL
This is Gecko45's cousin:

MASSIVE ADRENALINE DUMP!.... BLADE 45!!!!

YOU WILL NOT TOUCH MY SURVIVAL RIFLE!!!!!!

[J. Armstrong]

Originally posted by alfred10
Whats the MOA at 100 yards with a

DSA 16 inch:

DSA FAL regular size:

M1A Socom:

M1A match:

Arsenal AK 47:

Sig 556 full size:

I am looking to replace my AR with a more reliable survival rifle. Stuck between the FAL, Sig 556, Arsenal AK, or M1A.

If any of us could predict the accuracy of any individual rifle in a given category, we'd be rich and famous in more than our own minds. All of your options are capable of better accuracy than 99% of their users, including the professionals. All are capable of more than enough accuracy to do the job within their design parameters, and speaking for the AR, AK, FAL, an M14 families of weapons, all are (in general ) more than reliable enough for any use that most of us could possibly ever require provided we do our part.

After reading the selection of your posts, may I respectfully suggest you need to start with basics.

1)Pick a weapon, then practice, practice, practice. All the gee whiz tacticool stuff won't mean crap until you are competent with your chosen weapon. I say again, forget the dang gadgets and over the top gear until you are capable and confident with the basics, otherwise you will be capable with nothing, instead you will be an easy and desireable target for a competent rifleman who wishes to "upgrade" his own gear.

2) In order to select the best possible weapon, you need to consider Jeff Coopers' suggestion; ask yourself "what is it FOR ?". That is, what do you want the weapoin to accomplish, under what conditions, in what environment, etc. You can ask all the questions youi want, but without narrowing down your application, all you will get is every one elses' opinion on what THEY like, for THEIR application. Net result ? Zero help to you.

If you spend time with the search function here after doing the above you will find the info is already here. We don't mind helping noobs, but good Lord, we're not going to do all your research for you. You are responsible for a modicum of intelligent thought and a reasonable amount of research effort

[Randall]

Which ever one you shoot best, Plain and simple.

[jbrooks]

Nothing wrong with the AR. Been killing bad guys since 1964.

Only other weapon with such a long active career is the AK. I have shot both quite a bit, and the AR is hands down superior to the AK at anything over 100 yards. Those crappy sights on the AK are just intolerable. IMO, of course.

Although it is fashionable to bash the AR platform...

I have owned Galils, Valmets (both AK variants) and the same comments apply, althought the Galil had those cool tritium night sights that you can shoot shadows with.

Over my 42 years of actively shooting things since I entered the military in 1968, I've tried just about every extant military weapon. In Cambodia I had the opportunity to handle a rusted old AK that had the handguard wrapped together with bailing wire, but it still went bang and the bullet went somewhere towards the enemy.

You ask about accuracy... for a "survival" rifle. Accuracy is up to you. All the rifles you list will shoot better than you in a stressful situation. You need to pick one and practice until it becomes natural. Not just practice shooting, bu practice a "manual of arms", in other words, become so familiar with your weapon that you sleep with it, eat with it, and it becomes a part of you. Practice recovering from jams, replacing broken parts like firing pins, etc. tear the weapon down completely and rebuild it.

Lern it, love it.

My personal preference is a scoped para FAL for just about anything. I need a scope at my age...

Have fun with the Zombies...

JWB

[flybuzz]

Originally posted by tedg
I'd like an arguement please. Your topic asks "most reliable", but the body of your message seems to be asking which is the most accurate? I've allways thought the Ruger 10/22 makes a fine "survival rifle".

Of all my rifles, my 10/22 is the most Un-reliable. Glad yours works well for you.

[KBAR-04]

I would suggest you stick to 7.62 for a GP survival/defense weapon. The M1A, FAL and HKs are all reliable and accurate. Parts are a bit cheaper and easier to find for the FAL and HK but the M1A has the nicest trigger. My preference is the FAL having used one since the 70s...

Good reading is Boston's Gun Bible.

[tedg]

Strange, all I have owned have been dead reliable. My point was for a light weight game getter and defence gun,likely to be with me, I'll go with the .22 and 500 rounds over a Fal and 100 rounds. Now if we are talking pure defence/battle from humans and zombies, FAL, hands down.To put it a little better,depends wether we are talking wilderness or urban survival.

[WarriorPoet]

My .02......

FAL for 100/200/300+ yds. Wonderfully accurate and very, very reliable.

AK for 100-200 yds. Very, very reliable.

IF (IF) you absolutely feel the need to field a 5.56/.223 - get an AK in that caliber. You'll get reliability and marginal increase in accuracy (irons will still suck - so upgrade with scope/dot) - and you'll be able to use whatever battlefield pickup ammo you come across

Every rifle has +/-'s. After who-knows-how-many various military rifle matches I can tell you that AR's fail more than any other rifle on the firing line. That's 1st-hand observation.........not something I "read on the internet". Take it for what it's worth.

(No, I don't own an AR. I'm sure there are LOTS of AR shooters who will post that they haven't cleaned their AR's in XXXX number of days/weeks/months and have never, ever, ever had a malfunction........well bully for them! I'm just sayin' what I'm seein' every year......more than a few times a year, btw - that's all.)

Not hatin' ........... just observamalatin'

-WP


P.S. - I used to be in the, "The AK is the GOD of rifles!".......until I got my first FAL. Been a believer ever since If anyone says, "you can carry a LOT more 5.56/.223 (or 7.62x39) than 7.62x51/.308" - I'd be questioning just what kind of gunfight you plan on gettin' into! LOL Live on the Mexican border??? If you DID find yourself is some futurama/zombieland gun battle - take that FAL, drop one or three guys with a heavy-hitting rifle (and it should only take 1-3 rounds to do the job) and anyone else will take a piss and leave pronto!).

[JerodWKappes]

Buy a Galil [ True IMI , not the cia bastard child] or the Arsenal AK 107 for the needs you stated.

[Inkognito]

I have a 556 Classic and a Galil 5.56 ARM. I have a pre-ban standard FAL with 21" barrel and I have a Para kit that I built with a 16" barrel. I used to own an AR-15 but I traded it away years ago for the very reason you are contmplating it (would love to tell that story but have told it so many times people are probably getting sick of it). And I have owned AK-47's in the past, both were pre-ban Chinese. So based on my experiences with all of these I will offer these key points:

1. I would never, ever rely on an AR type rifle in a life threatening situation unless it was in a controlled environment like an indoor gun range and only then if I definitely had a cleaning kit with me.
2. Kalashnikovs are the most reliable weapons on the planet. I don't know if you realize this, but the SIG 556 is a Kalashnikov design refined and improved upon. That is why it would be my answer to your main question. The Galil also is a Kalashnikov refined and improved, but not to the point of the SIG 556 and it is a bit heavy. Also, the SIG uses standard M16 mags which may come in handy.
3. FALs are wonderful and I love them to death, but the recoil of the .308 makes them more difficult to control in tough situations. If you need the extra range or power then it is worth that recoil. My 16" Para is far worse than the 21" counterpart. I can empty 35 rounds through my Galli in about 10-15 seconds with all of the rounds hitting an 18" target at 25 yards (low recoil + heavy weight). I can shoot about 2-3 rounds through my Para FAL before I have to "reset" my stance and "re-sight". I'm not saying dumping massive amounts of ammunition is always the best plan, but if you are focusing on survival and not winning a strategic victory, it seems you will want to lay down some cover fire to keep the zombie's heads down while you extract yourself from the situation.
4. The SIG is a true anomaly. Extremely accurate and extremely reliable. If 5.56 is adequate for your needs, I can't think of one good reason why you would not choose it...except maybe price.

[Tim Dreas]

Originally posted by brunop
They're all the same - since they will all have you behind them pulling the trigger.

AKs won't even penetrate black pipe past 150 yards. Lots of target frames we use at the FAL Shoot have holes in the front of the pipe, and 'bulges' at the back. .308, .30-'06, x54R, etc. blow right through. Of course your target may not be wearing the oh-so-common black-pipe tactical vest...

If you are staying home, use the FAL. If you are going on walk about, take the AR and the extra ammo. Learn to shoot with irons.

Good luck, and

Peace.

Hey what size black pipe is that?

[Tim Dreas]

I have read about cocking handles and a few other small parts breaking in the Sig 556. The current M1A's just have too many imported commercial parts. The FAL is reliable when it has a lot of military parts. The newer DS Arms rifles are using some less reliable commercial parts these days but some of their base parts are good enough to add military parts. The Arsenal AK has a chrome lined barrel. I would favor 7.62x39 over 5.56 for reliability. 5.56 magazines are questionable in all rifles. The cartridge operates at magnum pressure with a thin, tiny rim and a small bore. 7.62x39 is lower pressure, has a strong rim, a tapered case and the bore is easier to keep clear. The AK magazines are super reliable too.

[MistWolf]

AKs suck hard enough to take the chrome off a trailer hitch. Reliable, but aren't durable and will hit everything but your target. Stock is too short, sights would be good if mounted on a pistol and they handle like a sewer pipe with popscicle sticks duct taped to it for furniture. They are a good choice for gangbangers who shoot their pistols sideways, third world thugs who raise the rear sights so their guns will shoot further and vodka soaked conscripts. The official maintenance regimen is to dunk'em in a 55 gallon barrel of diesel, shake'm till their dry and if you live long enough to break it, get another from the People's Supply Depot. AKs are uncomfortable, awkward and ugly. They are the belly gun of assault rifles. They only kill their targets by accident or because the shooter was able to fit the muzzle to the belly button of it's victim before yanking the trigger.

To hell with the SKS and damn all AKs. May all our enemies be forever armed with these Russian atrocities so that we may kill them more effeciently

[kiddsf]

MistWolf......I don't know what to say, but IMO you are wrong

[MO-FAL]

Originally posted by kiddsf
MistWolf......I don't know what to say, but IMO you are wrong

I think he is both right and wrong.

They are reliable as throwing a rock because they are very loose, so they can gum up and still work.

They do handle and point like a 2x4......and everyone that I have handled made my Springfield GI 1911's sights seem like match sights.

But in the end the AK has done it's job for many many battles over the years and will continue to kill many people until something cheaper and more reliable comes along.

[nawck]

A SHTF rifle is one that is not infringed away from you.

You can get a model 1898 Mauser bolt action rifle in many calibers that will shoot inch groups. And as antiques, they are not considered firearms, even by the constitution-haters.

just sayin....

[MistWolf]

Originally posted by kiddsf
MistWolf......I don't know what to say, but IMO you are wrong

I did exaggerate their lack of accuracy a bit, but only a little.

I'd rather tinker with almost any other rifle to get it running good, including a Ruger Mini 30 or Mini 14 than be given a clunky spray & pray AK or SKS no matter how reliable it was out of the box. I hate shooting the damn things and I pretty much love burning ammo in anything that goes bang.

I may get one or a copy of both someday, but they'll never be more than a curio. A survival rifle is, as jbrooks said one you practice manual of arms until you become intimately familiar with it . You sleep with it, eat with it and it becomes a part of you. Learn it, love it.

The AK is a fat old babushka and the SKS her ugly aunt and the thought of spending that kind of time with either is enough to make a man take a vow of celibacy

[newton3407]

I have to agree with MistWolf.

FAL: Sweet!

AR15: Sexy!

AK47 / SKS: YUCK! (I think I got crabs just from looking a picture of one!)

[cpd109]

Originally posted by flybuzz


Of all my rifles, my 10/22 is the most Un-reliable. Glad yours works well for you.

Try CCI minimags. My 10-22 is the same way but has much fewer issues with them. Now back to the regularly scheuduled thread.

[cpd109]

Keep the AR. Get a reliable FAL. (Stay away from CAI totally. You don't want zombies coming after you with one of the angry beaver corps' products in your hands.) You do want at least 1 30 caliber rifle though. AK is good, but has limited power cartridge. Don't get another 22 (5.56 or 223), but keep the AR if you have experience with it and ammo stored for it. However, if you only have 1 rifle, get a 30. Even a Garand!
You can't beat a full power 30 for knocking down zombies and keeping them down. On getting a 30, find out what it likes and stock up on that. I have begun using brown bear. It's cheap and works reliably in all my 30s. And it's all my PTR will eat that is still out there and although people don't like the recoil of it, it doesn't bother me. FALs like it too, even from the beaver corp.
Good thread- lots of opinions.

[Jailguard]

you got to think what ammo will be available so i wold go with a .223 in some plat form 7.62x39 next and 308 last. If you are talking about fighting off hords of bad guys then an auto loader is ok but a bolt gun with good iron sights is more of a survival gun. An Enfield in 7.62x39 would be good.

http://www.pyramid.net/sia/

[cpd109]

Originally posted by Jailguard
you got to think what ammo will be available so i wold go with a .223 in some plat form 7.62x39 next and 308 last. If you are talking about fighting off hords of bad guys then an auto loader is ok but a bolt gun with good iron sights is more of a survival gun. An Enfield in 7.62x39 would be good.

http://www.pyramid.net/sia/

You can make single accurate shots with an autoloader, but if you are where you shouldn't be, a semiauto is nicer. And these things do happen. Keeping a low profile is usually a lot better than trying to fight your way somewhere.

Remember Black Hawk Down when the second chopper went down....? Skinnies were everywhere. No bolt gun for this boy unless it works by itself or I have a semi close by.

[Redneck Rob]

I was going to a friends deer camp to hunt a few years back. I asked him if it was a short ( less than 100 yards ) field or a long ( up to 400 yards ) field. He said "why ?". I said 44-40 for short, 270 for long ( scoped A bolt 2 ). He said
"270 because the 270 was good from muzzle to 400.".
I say FAL-L1A1 and I have put my money where my mouth is.
I love AK's but the 7.62x39 cannot compete with the 7.62x51.

[jonnyo55]

AR unreliable? All due respect, but it seems to me that your post was generated more by looking thru "All the World's Assault Weapons" than by actually firing any of them...I've fired thousands of rounds through a series of AR15's, and never have had a malfunction of ANY type, and I'm one of the most leisurely people around as far as cleaning my weapons goes (a continual bone of contention with my buddy the 1st Sgt. ...).

I've got to agree with Mist Wolf as far as AK's go...I've had several, and haven't managed to keep a one of them for more than 100 rds. Inaccurate, uncomfortable, ill-fitting, crude...and firing a cartridge that isn't much good past 100 yds. Good at lookin' BAAAD, though...

FAL is a great choice, if you build one from military parts...they never break, always go "bang", and are quite accurate if suitably massaged. Just get some magazines and a receiver that like each other, and you're set.

M!a's? Kind of like FAL's, you've got to go with GI parts. But...good ones are climbing so high, price-wise, that they're becoming rich man's toys. Why not ask about a SIG PE57?

So..there you go my two cents worth. Now you can go and write your term paper....

[catmguy445]

Survival rifle? Seems to me all of the rifles you've listed are more into the battle rifle or assault rifle category. If I could only have one gun to use in a SHTF scenario where I needed to use it daily to remain warm and breathing, and I'm talking about using it to feed myself more than to fend off large numbers of unfriendly folks, the one gun I'd want would be a Savage 24V over/under in either .357 Magnum/20 gauge or .30-30/20 gauge. With the right ammo, that gun could be used for just about anything except long-range sniping, and it will take anything from squirrels to elk.

As far as a military/battle/assault rifle goes, my choice there would be either a FAL, a Daewoo K2/Max II, or possibly an SKS. I agree with MistWolf on his thoughts about the AK, but I have to respectfully disagree with him about the SKS. At one point a while ago, I picked up a battered, no finish left, ugly Chinese SKS just because it was unbelievably cheap, like under $100 retail, and it was also politically incorrect. The damned thing would shoot an inch group at 100 yards with any kind of ammo and the standard godawful iron sights it came with. I eventually traded it to somebody for something and got a Russian SKS in much better condition which will shoot at the same accuracy level. I don't particularly like SKS's, but I do have to respect the accuracy of the two that I've owned. Also, in talking to other SKS owners at ranges or gun shops, most SKS's seem to be very accurate (actually more accurate than they should be, considering their quality/precision/cost level) in a real world shooting environment. That said, the SKS would still be my last choice in a military rifle. I'd also consider the HK 91/G3 or HK 93 because of their reliability in adverse conditions.

[[486]]

I love how everyone jumps on bandwagons. The reality of it is that

The FAL's recoil is manageable with practice [I ain't too big and I've figured it out to the point that it doesn't bother me one bit, or even jar me around more than an AK does].

The AR isn't unreliable. Sure, you have to wipe off the outside of the bolt carrier when it gets too gummed up to slide freely, but that takes 1 minute, max. You don't even have to disassemble the BCG if you don't want to.

The AK isn't inaccurate. It is the ammo you feed it. Both an AK and a mil-spec AR [an AR with a complete A1/A2 upper stuck to it] will do 2 MOA with good ammo. The AK's bad trigger pull is either sand in it because you never clean it, or just crappy FCG components from the start. The 3 yugoslav FCGs I used out of the box [parts kit] had excellent trigger pulls. The main thing that makes AKs inaccurate is people not being too good with that style sighting system, or crappy ammo.

In reality, they are all much closer than you'd think. Pick the one that fits your budget or yourself best. I'd go with an AR [the one I posted about that was ran dirty for a while] personally, with someone carrying the L1 covering my back [they know who they are].

[C2A1]

I've put this question to folks who have really been there done that. These folks had access to all kinds of weapons and used them more than once. There are three gentlemen who I had the pleasure of sitting of hours ( maybe days) discussing this. I could write a book on what these folks have done but for me they gave me insight into the machines that work and why.
Here I'll cover one guy who I know to this day and we talk at least once a month.
Background; Army ranger, moved on to SF, Senior NCO for 5th group, worked with and helped set up the D boy selection process. Good friends with Gordie, briefed the team before they went in. On the ground and "involved" in Chad, Sudan, Somalia ( before we went in by a year. worked Somalia and Ethopia), Kuwait ( he was with the Kuwait underground alongside the highway of death, as it occured, calling in strikes. Yes, it has affected him). and Iraq. In the rangers he worked in south america. Even though retired, he has been asked to come back for some work in, of all places, Mongolia.
Over a few beers I asked. If the world went to hell, what would you want for the rest of your life as far a weapons were concerned. In his opinion:
Any turn of the century military bolt rifle is dangerous, with it you can really get anything else you want. You should have at least one of these and some ammo cached away. ( he has a VZ-24 in 8mm.) As far as a day to day carry weapon, an FAL. Realiable, easy to take care of and autos are concealment. As a backup to be used for hunting and marksman rifle, a semiauto rifle in a turn of the century caliber (30.06, 8mm, 7.62x54R). you are not shooting it like the FAL and you carry it when you are taking care of business and may want to bring in some game. Scoped is better and this is your only scoped rifle. The PSL and yugo M-76 fit the bill. He said Drags are a real PITA in the out of the way places. Headed into town, carry the FAL in the vehicle. when you headed into the store carry an AK74 side folder. It will get you back to your vehicle or at least to your cache. This is one man's opinion.
I asked if he could recall, other weapons that were used. He said a 6.5 carcano wreaked havoc in Somalia. In that case, he was with a Hummer and he said the guy took out the 50, hit it in the receiver, waited a bit and then got the radio. They found the rifle laying in the sand. Guy hit them again a couple of days later with another one. Never did get him. He said also the BM-59s worked well in Somalia. He said that would be his second choice for a 7.62 NATO rifle.
Just passing some thoughts along.

[Bravoemike]

Greetings...
ALFRED10

I have a SIG 556 Commando (16" barrel)
4X Hensoldt W/skeltonized German #1 reticle.
Shooting Wolf .223 55 grain FMJ
Head-shots easy to 200 yds.
MOA?
...I don't know, as the reticle is not conducive for shooting groups.
Reticle was designed to shoot 'HUMANS'!!
Great rifle...and recommended.

I have three FN's,
My Argy build was just finished, I shot it some,
I am not convinced I like the open sights yet (confriguration).
Balance is different...

I have a Belgium PARA (17.3 inch barrel I think) I have been using and carring for a long time,
4X Hensoldt, German # 4 reticle (non-sheltonized).
With bench rest preparred reloads, i.e. ream primer pockets, deburr flash hole, trim and square case mouth, (collet) neck size once fired brass from this rifle, 150 grain round nose seirra bullets, measure powder to the 1/10 grain or better, it will often shoot .75" 5 round groups, @ 100 yards. I mean often, but not always.

I find shooting groups an 'arbitrary exercise',
...and actually a detraction from 'riflery',
and what we are doing with these rifles.
I offer,
if you want 'small groups',
buy a bolt gun!!

And...
on that theme...
I think I might have just bought one of the perfect 'survival' rifle's,
...and, I assume you mean, survival from Zombie's.
Because thoughts of the other type of survival in this country,
strikes terror in me, and I mean absolute terror.
The rifle is also commonly known as the 'cub scout',
and so, I would like to formally re-name it the 'zombie scout'.

Optics should arrive tomorrow, 3-9 Meopta,
German #4 of course,
what else!!!

I reconfigured my stairway in the house, so it is quickly removable,
...and as everyone knows Zombie's can't climb,
so slow fire will suffice until I get upstairs!!

Enjoy...

Buy, an FN PARA 7.62,
I believe you will never look back with your purchase.

Bruce ~~___/)~*~

[Jailguard]

My post was if it was a fight off the evil hords I would take some thing in a common cal. If it was for pure survival a good light bolt gun with a mid range round in 30 cal that was common. Look at what is avaiable if all the hood rats and wanna be mall ninjas are carring an AR of some kind that make for alot of ammo to pick up. If it is invading forces Im thinking x39 will be plentyfull. Again with a decient bolt gun you can ge all the common semi auto you want.

[cliffg]

I agree that a Scout M6 is a great all round 'survival' rifle. But a SHTF weapon speaks of a different sort of survival. FWIW, alfred 10, we thad this little Katrina thing down here a while back, where the S actually did HTF. Afterward, many round these parts saw the need for a 'Katrina Kannon'. I settled on a a DSA 18" PARA (Hampton A2 lower) for me, while my brother settled on an AR-15 (A2, w/ 20" barrel). I do not fault my brother for his decision, but I think the FAL PARA is the better choice because of the ruggedness (no obsessive cleaning) and the stopping power of the round. No, it is NOT a sniper rifle, but with practice I can put 10/10 rounds in the black at 200 meters with iron sights, resting. (Ignore fancy optics on any SHTF rifle. Battery life and breaking issues.) Under 200 meters, or more particularly under 50 meters - looter distance - I can get much tighter. But then again, at looter distance, even the old AK should do fine.

Which is a long answer to say this: Figure out what your SHTF senario is, and get what you feel most comfortable using. And once you get it... practice, practice, practice.

The other thing I like about the FAL is, along with being my SHTF rifle, is it is also my deer rifle (with a 5-round mag) and, well, it's just plain fun to shoot.

[Twichinator]

I just can't keep silent anymore. The AR system has truly ONE week point. That is the magazine. Made of aluminum and to be light weight, they are easily damaged. This has been pretty well taken care of by the newer mags of today. I have been working with ar systems for twenty five years. Twenty in the military alone. Though the carbine systems do run into timing/pressure issues, rifles are quite reliable. I have fired Armalite AR15 cal. 223 Model 1 rifles that entered service with the Air Force in the early sixtys that were still running strong with original bolts, extractors, firing pins, upper receiver. Only barrels and the occasional extractor spring being changed as neccessary. These rifles had seen well in excess of 30k rounds through them with no signs of giving up.

In addition, I have extensive experience with ak based systems to include five years teaching foreign weapons to deploying troops. In that time I had many ak's that experienced stoppages.

All being said, I do not argue that the ak system is more reliable. No, not the bury in a rice patty for a month and pull it out and shoot kind. That is bull. But, the magazines are crazy built. However, to say that the ak is soo much more reliable is greatly over exagerating the fact. I think a lot of the reliability talk is parroted my many with no or little experience (think arm chair armorers).

The ar is lightweight and very accurate. It is also very reliable IF made/manufactured properly. What I mean is the gas pressure that meets the bolt carrier needs to get there with the proper pressure, pulse length, and at the proper time in relation to the residual pressure in the chamber. This is why I will state that the rifles are reliable and the carbines are hit or miss. My carbines run like swiss watches, but I have been building and maintaning these systems for over twenty years. If you want more details about ar systems may I suggest AR15.com.

Sorry about the long post on reliability alone. I am just tired of continued misconceptions/mischaracterizations that continue to abound. I could go in more detail but am currently on pain meds and getting this much down is a chore. Hope it all makes sense.

Twich

[Inkognito]

I think it is interesting how different the priorities are among gun owners. For me it has always been and will always be reliability as the first priority. Accuracy would be 2nd followed by several lesser important criteria such as ergonomics, caliber, etc. Statements like "AK-47 handles like a 2x4" and "AR15s are sexy" are as foreign to me as my statement that "I once fired 600 rounds of factory ammunition through an AR15 and it ceased to function as a semi-automatic rifle because of carbon buildup" would be to those on the other side. True story, I did not read it in a magazine, I experienced it personally. Until you have actually experienced something like that, I think it is easy to dismiss it as all just heresay, and I guess neither perspective is wrong, just different.

The original AK-47 is crude and primitive, and I do love it so. But there are many other Kalashnikov based designs that I would pick first: SIG, FNC, Galil, Valmet, Sako. All of these are as accurate or more than the average FALs that I have shot, but have the same primitive design and inherent reliability of the original AK. When this debate arises, everyone likes to compare the 21st century AR rifles to the original AK designed in 1947. In that argument the pro-AR people defend it by saying may of the early problems were fixed with subsequent improvements to the rifle. So if you are comparing AR vs. AK, either compare the two originals, or compare the latest evolution of both. In my opinion that would be SIG vs. AR. In this comparison I think you would want to throw out specific manufacturing QC issues. (This actually would be to the advantage of the AR side considering how many different manufacturers there are with varying degrees of quality.) I have heard that SIG had some quality issues with some of the early 556s but I have a later 556 Classic and do not see any quality issues whatsoever.

My experience between these two rifles is that weight is about the same, they use the same magazines, shoot the same caliber, have the same barrel twist, have very similar ergonomics (slight edge to the AR probably). But then when it comes to reliability, heavily tilted towards the SIG. Accuracy I would say probably goes to SIG as well but not enough to differentiate between the two in combat situations. So really, they are about the same, except one will always be reliable, and the other one has to be kept clean and is really at its best in controlled environments such as competitions, gun ranges, and other sporting applications. Not so much on the battlefield where conditions might include blowing dust and sand, mud, snow, humidity, moisture, folliage, gravel, etc.

If I wanted a larger caliber such like 7.62 NATO, then the FAL would be my first choice, followed by HK. And I actually prefer the 7.62 caliber over the 5.56. But in a tough spot I just think the lighter weapon, ability to carry more ammunition, and lighter recoil of the 5.56 would be to my advantage.