More and more I've been liking the idea of a light, compact 7.62x39 rifle with a red dot scope for deer hunting. I'm in southwest VA and very rarely have occasion to take a shot at over 100 yards, and am much more competent with an aimpoint than a traditional scope where parallax and consistent cheek welds matter - quick, accurate, close range shots are the order of the day when I'm in the woods. I should note I have hunting setups in .30-06, 7.62x54r, 30-30, and have occasionally carried an m1 carbine into the woods, and I'd like to combine the benefits of all of these into one package. Light, handy, accurate enough, powerful enough without beating me up, and I already shoot 7.62x39 by the boatload. I have 4 ARs, 2 in pistol configuration with an SBA3 brace, and would likely go this route in a 10.5" barrel for an AR setup. The nice thing about this is I could carry it in my vehicle on my pistol permit for impromptu hunting trips, and it's a much more compact package overall. Both would cost me about the same, both would weigh about the same, both would be similarly accurate, but the Ruger would be a bit more traditional and would be an option for medium-game hunting in states like PA where semis aren't deer legal. This isn't likely to happen again soon, but I have had hunting trips up that way before. So what say you? Is there an appreciable difference between a 10.5" and 16.25" barrel where 7.62x39 is concerned? Would the Ruger be more accurate than, say, a PSA upper by a huge margin? I expect a lot of "just get both!" responses, and I probably will.... but which one first?