I received a couple more comments/e-mails from readers expressing their opinions on the better of the two rifles/carbines for the gun to have for the collapse.
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "AK-47 versus the AR-15 as a SHTF Gun": "Wow! Have been putting together AR variants for 3 yrs now and have a hybrid BCM/LMT carbine in 5.56. This after years of owning a Norinco MAK 90 and "reconfiguring" Saiga IZ132 back to true AK form. Either AK variant or my AR will do. The civilian AK variant is NOT all 100% reliable (WASRS have proven that) and good ARs rarely "jam"( 2,300 rds through my BCM M4 style upper with SOCOM barrel and M16 bolt carrier-no hiccup or malfunction). For home defense or bug out to a safer community/ area, either will suit your needs. A realistic SHTF is a fast pandemic or katrina style disaster, where the government is crippled for several weeks, and the usual opportunists come out of their dung heaps! I don't believe in mad max gum battles (the idea of prepping for a disaster is survival, not playing "last man standing"-anyone preaching that mindset is DEAD during a disaster). If you need a long gun until Rule of Law is re-established, buying either an AK or AR/M4 clone will do. Lets leave the 400m + kill zone views to our troops who have to do it. Engaging past 100 ft isn't "self defense" or fighting for survival post disaster. "
UrbanMan's comment: The above comment was very sound. My take away is that the man behind the gun and his planning is as or more important. I somewhat agree with your 400 meter - 100 meter analogy. However, there are circumstances where engaging out an extended distances would make sense such there being two of you and a large group is approaching your cabin or structure. If it was unavoidable that this group closes with your cabin, and undeniable that your lives are in danger, why wouldn't you engage at an effective range rather than wait until this group closes with you, spreads out and makes it much more difficult to engage?
Neal dropped me an e-mail with his observations: "I have no problem with people who want to own an AK or a clone, but the man who has an AR (I have two Rock River M4 clones) is much better prepared for all contingencies especially living in a big city with all the crazies going bonkers when they can't find any food. I think you are doing people a disservice by recommending anything but an AR, apologies to those of you who have 7.62 AR's but 5.56mm is much easier to find and easier to carry. Right now I live in the city and drive a truck on a city route making deliveries. I always carry my Glock without my supervisors knowing cause I'd get fired. My wife is finishing up a nursing program and we'll move to whether she can get a job. But right now our plan is immediately leave our apartments each carrying an M4 and Glock, with our battle rattle and bug out bags, then go down the stairs of our apartment to the parking basement to access our car. She is going to drive and I'll be in the back seat to I can shoot out both sides. We have about 16 blocks to go to get into a non residential area then into the country. We're not waiting around at all. All of you who own AK's would go much better with an M-4 like my city situation."
UrbanMan's comment: Neal, I don't think I have "recommended" AK's. My focus is on regular people just getting better prepared for the collapse whether it comes from the dollar tanking, an EMP attack, a great depression or even zombies! Most people are just not going to go out and buy what they think are Military Weapons. I think a family who has a bolt gun, a shotgun and maybe a .22 pistol or whatever they have, can get the rest of their preps up considering food, water, necessary survival gear, shelter and defenses, and above all, a plan that covers the Bug Out. I applaud you on the plan you have leaving your apartment and getting out of the city at first chance. Maybe you and your wife and did a couple weaponless rehearsals, clearing hallways, stairs and basement. And what happens if getting to your vehicle is not viable or that vehicle craps out? Consider a plan to move on foot to another location whether it is a defensible short term hole up and/or a place to procure another vehicle.
Friday, April 11, 2014
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Dont like the whole AK vs AR, Ford v Chevy, Glock v 1911, Coke v Pepsi debates. Just draws in the fan boys into a flame war. AK and AR are both fine proven platforms each with both their own strengths and weaknesses.
ReplyDeleteI have always believed that if you can make it work effectively for you, then use it. Just my op.
I like AK because it is cheaper and more forgiving then AR. AK can be easily operated and shot continuously. The best thing which I like about AK is sand or dirt doesn’t affect its function where as AR need regular cleaning.
ReplyDeleteRE: "engaging past 100 feet is not self defense"
ReplyDeleteThere is no reason why defending yourself against a well armed opponent who is 33.4 yards away is not self defense. Recent experiences in Katrina and Sandy show that neighborhood watch protection of your abode could easily place you at odds against bad people who are willing and able to engage you from beyond pistol range. A well tuned AR and a practiced rifleman will be able to "defend" himself much better than a bloke with a Glock on his hip or his pappy's duck gun.
There are many scenarios where a person may be called on to defend himself against an enemy who has decided to start shooting at ranges beyond 100 feet.
Prepare accordingly.