steveo_justice |

not bad

69beeguy
69beeguy
not bad
Feb 16 2009, 11:59 AM EST | Post edited: Feb 16 2009, 11:59 AM EST
personal preference, but i would still take the M-4 over the AK any day. I have actually seen the AK's fail, but that was due to the Afghan Army not cleaning/caring for them. The .223/5.56 is a frangible bullet. I have seen it wipe heads out whereas the 7.62x39 went through. I can also make head shots at 200m. near impossible with the AK. you also have to be careful with the "cheap" ammo you can get for the AK (or M-4 for that matter). the barnaul and other russian manufactured ammo has a zinc coating that gums up the action after 20-30 rds of sustained fire. gotta remember you get what you pay for with ammo. the Ak can have advantages for you in your situation, but not in mine.
Do you find this valuable?    
steveo_justice
steveo_justice
1. RE: not bad
Apr 3 2010, 2:07 AM EDT | Post edited: Apr 3 2010, 2:07 AM EDT
Honestly, I don't see why you'd need to hit anything out past 100 yards in a zombie outbreak, It'd be better jsut to sneak around 'em at that range and save the ammo and noise.

My issue with AR15 pattern guns is of course mostly with the reliability, but the 5.56 round kinda kills it's usefullness in my opinion. Without any stopping power, you'd kinda pe out of luck in a panic situation where headshots are hard to get. the only plus I can see is the light wieght of the ammo and weapon.
Do you find this valuable?    
steveo_justice
steveo_justice
2. RE: not bad
Apr 3 2010, 2:10 AM EDT | Post edited: Apr 3 2010, 2:10 AM EDT
Also, I've been putting only the cheap Russian ammo through it and I've never had any problems. Wolf brand?
Do you find this valuable?