i want to get another ak. i'm torn between 7.62x39 and 5.45x39. there's no need for a caliber war, i know the pros/cons of each. however, which would you buy and why? i'm thinking along the lines of ammo and mag availability and cost. i've found a sar2, looks pretty nice, has a match style trigger installed, for $500. i've also found a sar1 is nice shape for $675. i've also considered the arsenals, as i have owned them in the past. so, which and why?
SAR2 opinions?
- Thread starter proven
- Start date
- Status
blackwalnut
Member
RE: SAR2 opinions....
If you have a 7.62 already try the 5.45 as it is growing in popularity and commercial Russian ammo is inexpensive and good quality. It is a fun caliber and if you want them and can afford them get one. The prices are fine dont get completely hung on buying by price otherwise you can miss something good. The smaller one seems to be a bit more accurate and the already light recoil is still lighter yet. 5.45 is neat . Try it and have fun.
If you have a 7.62 already try the 5.45 as it is growing in popularity and commercial Russian ammo is inexpensive and good quality. It is a fun caliber and if you want them and can afford them get one. The prices are fine dont get completely hung on buying by price otherwise you can miss something good. The smaller one seems to be a bit more accurate and the already light recoil is still lighter yet. 5.45 is neat . Try it and have fun.
Shear_stress
Member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2005
- Messages
- 2,728
The SAR-series was regarded by many as "junk" when introduced, but now have a cult following because they left the Romanian factory able to take double-stack magazines. Technically they weren't really importable at the time, but the ATF looked the other way for years while Century imported them as "parts kits" because they came into the country without fire control groups. Interesting story.
The -1 and -2 are good rifles and functionally identical. SAR 2 magazines and ammo will not be on every gun store shelf, but can easily be obtained online. Really it just boils down to personal preference.
On the other hand, $675 is crazy money for an SAR-1, more than twice what I paid earlier in the year. That deal was the result of a lot of patient looking but, even in this market, the SAR-1 is a $500 rifle, tops, based on what I see people actually paying. Of course, the folks that bought theirs for $250 ten years will scoff at the figure, but it ain't 2002 any more.
The -1 and -2 are good rifles and functionally identical. SAR 2 magazines and ammo will not be on every gun store shelf, but can easily be obtained online. Really it just boils down to personal preference.
On the other hand, $675 is crazy money for an SAR-1, more than twice what I paid earlier in the year. That deal was the result of a lot of patient looking but, even in this market, the SAR-1 is a $500 rifle, tops, based on what I see people actually paying. Of course, the folks that bought theirs for $250 ten years will scoff at the figure, but it ain't 2002 any more.
Last edited:
benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
I'd trade my SAR-1 for a SAR-2 if I could. My -1 has been a very good carbine, and has never had a failure of any kind since I bought it in 2003. Knowing what I know now, I think 5.45 is a better fit for my needs, though.
rbernie
Contributing Member
This. A SAR is a $450-$500 gun, tops, in my neck of the woods. It's nowhere near the same money as an Arsenal or a converted Saiga.
I prefer the SAR-1 over the SAR-2 because I value 7.62x39 as a more well-rounded chambering, and because I refuse to be solely dependant upon ComBloc ammo imports to feed any of my guns.
Wildbillz
Member
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2010
- Messages
- 1,023
I went full boat into a AK74 type rifle. Had the gun built, bought a bunch of ammmo and mags. First time I fired it I felt let down. I was just under impressed with the rounds accuracy (yep could be the gun or me) and it seemed like it didn't have that much umph for lack of a better term.
But that could just be me
WB
But that could just be me
WB
- Status
