Consolidating Rifles (.22/5.56/.308/7.62x39)

[HammerheadSSN663]

A friend currently owns the following:

(2) Bushmaster 5.56 AR-15s
(1) .22 (Ruger Heavy Barrel tactical)
(1) Remington PSS LTR .308 (20 inch fluted barrel)
(1) Remington Police Issue 12ga.

In an effort to consolidate rifles/ammo, he's thinking of selling the ARs and .308 and purchasing the Bushmaster 7.62x39 for both tactical purposes (SHTF) and hunting larger game (i.e, less to keep track of/less to haul around). He still wants to keep the .22 for small game.

Any thoughts???

 

[rj112275]

Looks like a nice collection of popular calibers. Why change a good thing?

 

[HammerheadSSN663]

mostly just thinking of logistics. why keep track of two (3) different rifles and ammo when one (7.62x39) will do the same thing essentially....and considering most deer (and God forbid combat) encounters are well within a 100yds anyway.

 

[Sheepdog1968]

The 7.62x39 is about the same as a 30-30 so it would work for deer. If you want to go for a general rifle, I'd lean more towards either a semi-auto 308 such as an M1a or a bolt action in 308 such as the Ruger Scout.

 

[Effigy]

I think switching to either 7.62x39 or .308 is a sound choice. For the former I'd go with an AK since I've heard 7.62x39 ARs can have reliability issues, but I haven't tried them personally. .308 is a more capable cartidge than the others, but it's going to be a lot more expensive to practice with than the others. .308 is also generally going to be a heavier rifle and you wouldn't be able to carry as much ammo with you at a time.

I think the big question is what the primary purpose is for his rifle. If hunting or long-range target shooting is the main use, then .308 is the best option. If plinking or defense is the main purpose, then 7.62x39 is a better fit.

 

[Domino]

Uh, why?

Nothing wrong with a having "A" rifle that can sort of do-it-all but selling perfectly capable firearms in favor of having a one rifle is severely limiting yourself, and for no good reason. I mean, you can only shoot one rifle at a time. This is not the best concept, particularly when you already have a fine collection of diverse weapons that can do many things well. Now if your friend wants to consoladate than I would recommend buying a .308 Battle Rifle to go along with his bolt action.

Don't get me wrong, I love the 7.62X39 but this is not the way to go about it IMO.

 

[benzy2]

I'm in the more is better camp. I don't get why you would downsize the stable to have fewer chamberings. Sure, if you want a 7.62x39 for a do-it-all rifle, get one, but I'd keep the others for the times that they are a better fit for the situation. Truth be told, if all we wanted was the minimum, a 12 gauge with a smooth and rifled barrel would take care of most any "need". It's the wants that keep me looking for more and different firearms.

 

[me26245]

Lots of options here although I think what is at hand sounds good enough. Ammo supply in a SHTF situation could be problematic if you go with the 7.62x39. Once you've exhausted your supply you may not be able to get more easily. The military would be concieveable the best supplied, therefore using weapons in a military caliber would make resupply easier. That said, your friend could just buy dedicated uppers/ magazines in .22lr and 7.62x39 for his current AR15. Then he would have a three caliber rifle. Just a thought.

 

[benEzra]

Not a particularly good idea, IMO, at least not for the reasons stated. 7.62x39mm AR's often have magazine issues; 7.62x39mm does not like straight magazine wells due to the highly tapered case, leading to less robust reliability than AR's in other calibers. Also, 7.62x39mm AR magazines are as scarce as hen's teeth, and if you damaged one in a disaster then a replacement would be hard to come by.

As to the hunting role, .308/7.62x51mm is considerably more powerful than 7.62x39mm and is a much better hunting cartridge for big game. 7.62x39mm is fine for small deer inside 125-150 yards, but it's .30-30 class, not .308 class. Odds are that the PSS might give twice the effective range that 7.62x39mm would.

For a defensive carbine, I think a 5.56mm/.223 AR wins over a 7.62x39mm AR---not only for reliability reasons, but also for reasons of weight and recoil. 7.62x39mm is roughly twice as heavy per round as .223 is, even though they deliver roughly the same amount of energy, and loaded 7.62mm magazines weigh much more for the same round count. Also, 7.62x39mm kicks more, so followup shots will be slower than with .223.

If he likes the idea of a 7.62x39mm as an all-around disaster rifle, I'd suggest selling whichever AR he likes the least, and using the proceeds to buy an AK and a case of decent 7.62x39mm ammo. But it looks to me as if he has a pretty well rounded collection right now, as it stands.

 

[Ohio Gun Guy]

I wouldnt change anything..... I would tell him to save up and get a hand gun to add to that (9mm or .45) but thats another post for sure.

 

[Effigy]

To those saying more is better, I agree if you're talking about recreation. But when the OP is talking about ammo logisitics, having one chambering (in addition to the ubiquitous .22LR) makes perfect sense.

 

[oneounceload]

And in that case, the 308 would beat the 7.62x39 hands down for his SHTF scenario purposes

 

[Domino]

To those saying more is better, I agree if you're talking about recreation. But when the OP is talking about ammo logisitics, having one chambering (in addition to the ubiquitous .22LR) makes perfect sense.

More is always better no matter what.

Having one rifle is fine if thats all you have.

Selling perfectly good and highly effective rifles to have only one (and a mediocre rifle at that) is borderline insanity.

Also, having only one ammunition type doesn't really make since unless you multiple weapons in that caliber and you intend to equip others with the same weapons and ammo. Logistically speaking, even if you only have one rifle in one caliber it is highly unlikely you will find ONE particular load that does everything best such as hunting, plinking, and defensive ammo. The point is, you are probably going to have to buy several different "types" of 7.62X39 just to fill your needs. So whats the difference in having a few firearms (for different purposes) with their own supply of ammo? If anything, the latter gives you not only more diversity but also more fault tolerance in case one gun is messed up.

I too would sell one AR-15 to fund a good rifle in 7.62X39 (like an Arsenal AK) and at least test the proof of concept before selling all of your others and commiting to this idea.

 

[Maverick223]

Sell one of the ARs, buy a VZ.58 (excellent reliability, good ergonomics, light weight, and better than average accuracy) and retain the other arms until you decide you want more oomph (when you take out the .308Win. or 12Ga.), more accuracy (when you unveil the AR-15), or cheap plinkin' (when you dispatch the .22LR)...Done!

You can still just carry the VZ.58 and use it for most everything (including deer hunting, SD/HD, and zombie invasion preparation), but you still have the specialized rifles/chamberings for when you need it (keep in in the safe/cabinet until that time).

 

[benEzra]

To those saying more is better, I agree if you're talking about recreation. But when the OP is talking about ammo logisitics, having one chambering (in addition to the ubiquitous .22LR) makes perfect sense.

It simplifies ammunition purchasing a little, yes. On the other hand, if you have rifles chambered in more than one common caliber, then you are good to go if you can find .223 or .308 (or whatever).

I think that having a dozen different calibers (or a handful of rare calibers) could be a logistical nightmare, but having two common centerfire calibers (.223 and .308) isn't really that much harder than having just one, IMO. And the tradeoffs in performance compared to .308 are significant.

 

[Effigy]

How many rounds do you guys expect to stockpile for each of the calibers you shoot? SHTF was mentioned in the OP, and having a large ammo reserve is a consideration there. I'd rather have 2000+ rounds of x39 in that situation than 100 of this and 200 of that. Especially if we need to factor handgun calibers into the equation.

benEzra, you make a good point in that you can having multiple chamberings allow you to use more ammo you might find. I think that's a good argument for having the .308 plus a defensive carbine (whether 5.56 or 7.62x39). I wouldn't go beyond 2 if ammo logistics is a consideration though.

 

[Maverick223]

I wouldn't go beyond 2 if ammo logistics is a consideration though.

Why not stockpile for one (7.62x39mm & .22LR), keep a decent amount for another (.223Rem.), and a few boxes of the rest? Adds a great deal of versatility for little added cost.

 

[Effigy]

I don't know. I just think many shooter end up buying way more guns than they need, just for fun. I'm constantly tempted down that path as well. There's something to be said for fun, but approaching this from a purely utilitarian perspective I don't think it makes sense. The 7.62x39 cartridge should be sufficient for any task you need (not want, but need) it to perform, so I think it's a sound choice for if you only want one chambering. Most people will never need to hunt big game or engage targets beyond 250 yards, even if Western civilization breaks down.

 

[HammerheadSSN663]

"For a defensive carbine, I think a 5.56mm/.223 AR wins over a 7.62x39mm AR---not only for reliability reasons, but also for reasons of weight and recoil. 7.62x39mm is roughly twice as heavy per round as .223 is, even though they deliver roughly the same amount of energy, and loaded 7.62mm magazines weigh much more for the same round count. Also, 7.62x39mm kicks more, so followup shots will be slower than with .223."

I agree. Contrary to popular opinion, I think the 5.56/.223 is a much more 'realistic' round for all around use.

1. the obvious lighter weight
2. more rounds per mag
3. its slightly more expensive if using surplus
4. it can take small/medium deer, hogs, and small game(fmj only)
5. and truth is, if the SHTF, American Zombies are not like drugged-up jihadists. One shot to the big toe or one wizzing by an ear, said American Thug Zombie is down for the count and/or running away screaming, "Hey its cool man! I ain't mean nothing by it!!!" I simply don't picture an American SHTF and a real-war scenario as one in the same.

Again, the main concern is simply logistics (less to keep track of vs. versatility).... and also each states deer/large game hunting laws regarding the 5.56/.223.

And yes, there is a Sig 229 9mm within reach.

 

[chris in va]

I'd also have to agree about 308. x39 is an intermediate cartridge, really not meant for hunting (although you can of course). Maybe he could look into getting a Saiga 308 and converting it with a few parts.

That being said I had a Saiga conversion in x39 for a number of years and really felt like it was just something to plink with at the range, and even in that role wasn't all that great. I sold it and am using the funds to get an AR.

 

[Effigy]

Either carbine caliber should do fine. If it comes down to 5.56 vs 7.62x39 (or 5.45 for that matter), there are plenty of threads out there debating the matter. My proposal is that a decent carbine should be enough to handle any realistic scenario you would be confronted with. Anything beyond that is gravy and you should get your carbine squared away before you consider investing in other rifles.

I think a .308 battle rifle is a fine choice as well, but again you'll be limited in mag capacity, overall weight considerations, and affordability of ammo. Unless you foresee a need for lots of long-range shooting, you should be covered with an intermediate cartridge.

This is all assuming you're preparing with defense/survival in mind. If you don't care about that, then go wild with calibers as you see fit.

 

[benzy2]

To those saying more is better, I agree if you're talking about recreation. But when the OP is talking about ammo logisitics, having one chambering (in addition to the ubiquitous .22LR) makes perfect sense.

Logistics? Really? Have a bunch, stock ammo for the ones that you want to stock ammo for, buy the rest as you need it. You take the situation of a single rifle and it's ammo/accessories in whatever chambering you want and then add a few other rifles with ammo here and there and do exactly the same as you planned with a single rifle when that comes to be. I wouldn't take off for the hills with a couple dozen rifles, but I also don't see why having them now makes a difference when any of that other stuff goes down. You don't need 100 rounds for 20 different rifles all to carry with you into the hills. But, having a your desired SHTF rifle and ammo as well as a few others takes nothing away from your SHTF rifle.

 

[Effigy]

The issue is cost. The more rifles you buy, the less money you have to practice with or stockpile ammo for any given rifle. If cost wasn't a concern, there would be no harm in buying all the rifles you want. Instead of spending $800 on a second rifle, you could buy roughly 3-4k rounds of 7.62x39 or .223, either to practice with or store for the future. There's also the matter of buying optics, slings, magazines, spare parts, and other accessories for all of your rifles, which can add up fast.

 

[benzy2]

The issue is cost.

I'd agree with that if it was brought up before your post, but it hasn't been the issue mentioned yet.

In an effort to consolidate rifles/ammo, he's thinking of selling the ARs and .308 and purchasing the Bushmaster 7.62x39 for both tactical purposes (SHTF) and hunting larger game (i.e, less to keep track of/less to haul around). He still wants to keep the .22 for small game.

mostly just thinking of logistics. why keep track of two (3) different rifles and ammo when one (7.62x39) will do the same thing essentially....and considering most deer (and God forbid combat) encounters are well within a 100yds anyway.

Again, the main concern is simply logistics (less to keep track of vs. versatility).... and also each states deer/large game hunting laws regarding the 5.56/.223.

None of this mentions the problem being the end user needing money. If that had been said, I'd be all for trimming the fat from the collection. The issue mentioned continues to be "logistics". Honestly, the rifles mentioned above require very few replacement parts, and those are easily acquired. As it sits, he has 2 different centerfire chamberings to buy, a rimfire, and a shotgun, far from being overwhelmed with choices. He says he wants to keep the .22 as well. I'm not sure if the shotgun is a department gun or if it is his to sell. That means he may be cutting from 2 down to one centerfire round. Not a big difference. He also says he likes the .223 for SD/HD situations. So, buy a little .308 for hunting (since it is mentioned) and just buy .223 from there, very little different than from not having just a single rifle. If he needs money for ammo, sell one of the ARs to fund the ammo and stay as is on the rest having a better hunting rifle to boot.

 

[Maverick223]

That means he may be cutting from 2 down to one centerfire round. Not a big difference. He also says he likes the .223 for SD/HD situations. So, buy a little .308 for hunting (since it is mentioned) and just buy .223 from there, very little different than from not having just a single rifle. If he needs money for ammo, sell one of the ARs to fund the ammo and stay as is on the rest having a better hunting rifle to boot.

Exactly! If cost of ammo was the problem, sell one AR-15, keep a box of .308 for deer, a box or two of 12Ga. for HD and/or hunting, and buy a bunch of .223Rem. to go with the remaining AR.