Dionysusigma
Member
Well, I've been the proud owner of a beautiful (after much refinishing) Romanian SAR-1 for about three years, now. It's as reliable as a hammer, as accurate as a hammer, and as pretty as one too.
However, a few things recently have got me wondering about its future in the family. Ammo is not as common as it once was. Mags, though cheap and plentiful, are large and unwieldy--shooting it prone is a pain. No rails on it, so I can't go "tactical" even if I wanted to. The rear sight is kinda annoying me, since it's so far forward. So, with these in mind, I've looked at other rifles in the moderate-caliber, moderate-distance, moderate-cost range.
What I came up with is the SU-16C.
It's lightweight, takes AR mags and is chambered in easy-to-find .223, has a built-in folding bipod and folding stock, has visible sights, and so on, and so on. It's as pretty as a hand drill, is more accurate than the AK, etc.
It's got its drawbacks too, though. "Battlefield durability" is unconfirmed; a lot of people have done a lot to them, but nothing beyond what they thought the gun would easily already live through. I know little of its reliability. How sturdy is the bipod and stock? .223, though flatter-shooting than 7.62x39, isn't quite as hard-hitting. How easy is it to take apart and clean?
Final question is, should I keep the AK or get the SU-16C?
P.S. If I do get convinced to go with the SU-16C, Azrael256 has first dibs on the AK, its mags and accessories, and all its ammo.
P.P.S. Dangit, I was going to post a poll... :banghead: Ah well.
However, a few things recently have got me wondering about its future in the family. Ammo is not as common as it once was. Mags, though cheap and plentiful, are large and unwieldy--shooting it prone is a pain. No rails on it, so I can't go "tactical" even if I wanted to. The rear sight is kinda annoying me, since it's so far forward. So, with these in mind, I've looked at other rifles in the moderate-caliber, moderate-distance, moderate-cost range.
What I came up with is the SU-16C.
It's lightweight, takes AR mags and is chambered in easy-to-find .223, has a built-in folding bipod and folding stock, has visible sights, and so on, and so on. It's as pretty as a hand drill, is more accurate than the AK, etc.
It's got its drawbacks too, though. "Battlefield durability" is unconfirmed; a lot of people have done a lot to them, but nothing beyond what they thought the gun would easily already live through. I know little of its reliability. How sturdy is the bipod and stock? .223, though flatter-shooting than 7.62x39, isn't quite as hard-hitting. How easy is it to take apart and clean?
Final question is, should I keep the AK or get the SU-16C?
P.S. If I do get convinced to go with the SU-16C, Azrael256 has first dibs on the AK, its mags and accessories, and all its ammo.
P.P.S. Dangit, I was going to post a poll... :banghead: Ah well.