ak-47 or ak-74


PDA






mrmom61
March 8, 2008, 06:51 PM
What are the advantages and disadvantages of both. I want something I can afford to shoot and I struggle with the price of 223 ammo.

If you enjoyed reading about "ak-47 or ak-74" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Number 6
March 8, 2008, 07:04 PM
The 74 will give you cheaper ammo (currently), lighter recoil, and a flatter trajectory. The 47 will give you a harder hitting cartridge that will probably have greater long term availability, and more parts availability. Both 5.45x39 and 7.62x39 are decent cartridges and will both perform well for self-defense type of scenarios. The 7.62 cartridge can be used to hunt deer and game of similar size, while the 5.45 would limit you to varmint sized game. I think a lot of people are getting really excited about the 74 due to the cost of ammunition, but remember these prices will not last, and 5.45 is not produced in the same quantities as the 7.62. I do not think that buying an AK-74 is a bad idea, but I think a lot of people are going to have AK-74s sitting in their safes in a few years when 5.45 surplus is not as plentiful.

Evil Monkey
March 8, 2008, 07:11 PM
I'd say if you have a 223 rifle already, the money spent buying an AK would be better off spent on 223 ammo.

dscottw88
March 8, 2008, 08:46 PM
Converted Saiga in 223 for me. Problem solved.

High Planes Drifter
March 8, 2008, 09:25 PM
I'd say if you have a 223 rifle already, the money spent buying an AK would be better off spent on 223 ammo.

Good point. You'd really need to shoot alot to justify buying another gun simply because of ammo costs.

Lets look at it this way -

You can find Romanian AKs for about $350.00; add background check & shipping and you're looking at about $400.00 total.

1K rds of 5.45 is $130 (source : AIM surpluss, J&G Sales) .

1K rds of 223 is , what, somewhere in the nieghborhood of $230 ~ (I havent bought 100rds of 5.56 in a while:uhoh:).

You'd be saving about a hundred bucks every time you ordered 1K rounds of 5.45 vs 5.56. It would take you 4 1K rounds order placements just to recoup(in savings) the money you spent on the rifle. In my humble opinion, I would suggest either taking up reloading; or consider buying a Ruger 10/22, where the initial investment is much lower, and the cost of ammunition is a fraction of 5.56, or 5.45.

wdlsguy
March 8, 2008, 10:17 PM
If you go with 5.45x39, stock up now, because there isn't any domestic production at the moment, and the next president might not look kindly upon imported ammunition...

buck00
March 9, 2008, 07:31 AM
http://www.aimsurplus.com/acatalog/Bulgarian__WASP__5.45x39_FMJ.html

http://www.centuryarms.biz/proddetail.asp?prod=AM1352

5.45 ammo is still $119. You have to go to the check out at Century for the discount to kick in.

I like the way my AK-74 shoots better than my AK-47. Light recoil, more accurate, flat-shooting.

stubbicatt
March 9, 2008, 08:57 AM
The 74 is a lot of fun to shoot.

MudPuppy
March 9, 2008, 11:45 AM
I really, really like my tantals that are in 5.45, but if I only had one AK pattern it would be in the "original" 7.62x39. I like the fact that its a realistic deer cartridge (and yeah, I use the AK or G3 to take deer--that makes them sporting and should be fine to import...right?)
If I had the 7.62 and wanted a lighter, flat shooting companion I'd go with a 5.56 first because the ammo is sold at walmart and every else (even the monster cabela's here doesn't stock the 5.45). If you do end up with the 5.45, it is good advice to stock up while the surplus is cheap--but wolf and others are making commercial stuff that's still cheaper than 308 or 223.

One very, very, very important note on the surplus 5.45 is its corrosive. All the 5.45 barrels that I'm aware of are chrome lined, but it'll still nasty up the internals, fcg, hammer spring, etc.

jpwilly
March 9, 2008, 11:51 AM
If you don't already have a 223 or 7.62x39 starting out with 5.45 wouldn't be a bad idea as long as you get 5000 or more rounds into storage.

rangerruck
March 9, 2008, 01:55 PM
the russians swithced to 545 so that should say something. More serious wound channel, at 200 yds, they found that a center hit would give someone a 60 % chance of dying, while the 762 was about 30%, longer range, about double the 762; for a decent trajectory, more penetration, better penetration of a steel pot at 300 meters than a 223 round. It is a fine round.

nalioth
March 9, 2008, 02:26 PM
the russians swithced to 545 so that should say something. .... and their former vassal countries are now switching back to 7.62x39 (if they ever changed) or 5.56 Nato (so that should say something).

buck00
March 9, 2008, 05:19 PM
and their former vassal countries are now switching back to 7.62x39 (if they ever changed) or 5.56 Nato (so that should say something).

Ok, but why did they switch to 5.56 NATO? Could it have anything to do with them joining NATO and the military policy of fellow allies having the same cartridge to share in case of a major war? :scrutiny:


5.45 x 39 is a great round. There are hundreds of thousands of Afghans and Chechens who met allah the hard way courtesy of this bullet. :evil:

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=59010&stc=1&d=1181248557

If you enjoyed reading about "ak-47 or ak-74" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!