Fantastic Firearms Part 2 - General

[QUOTE=PrismatexV3;16070624]Random gun-related question: If, in the future, I wanted to start shooting, would a Ruger 10/22 be a good beginners' choice? I know that .22LR is cheap as dirt and I've heard that it's good for beginners.[/QUOTE] I heard guns and gay people don't get along well. But the 10/22 jams a lot and is inaccurate and not that fun of a weapon to hold. At least with all the misfires and failed ejections you'll get to practice your TRB a lot. .22 is a great beginners round I'd just go with something like a Marlin or a Savage over a Ruger (great handguns but their rifles have always been a bit sketchy.)

[QUOTE=Guardian-Angel;16071616]I heard guns and gay people don't get along well. But the 10/22 jams a lot and is inaccurate and not that fun of a weapon to hold. At least with all the misfires and failed ejections you'll get to practice your TRB a lot. .22 is a great beginners round I'd just go with something like a Marlin or a Savage over a Ruger (great handguns but their rifles have always been a bit sketchy.)[/QUOTE] Is this your experience talking? Because the only problems I've ever had with my 10/22 were due to cheap ammo, and I don't think I've ever spoken to someone who complained that their 10/22s were having issues.

[QUOTE=mugofdoom;16067252]Do the Nagant revolver, do it do it.[/QUOTE] Eh we've already discussed it to some length.

[QUOTE=nukehummer;16070566]Damn, the pamphlet with the cannons on the front saying "since 17--" lied to me.[/QUOTE] Springfield Armory has built their reputation on the stupidity of their customers.

[QUOTE=JoshuaC;16070142]Oooh Sigs are awesome. $800+ and they come with 1 magazine and they're going through some QC issues right now. Sigs are expensive cause they're status symbols and not cause they're the end all of pistols. Also there's no handguns below the price of $800 that are worth a shit are there. I'm so glad we've got you around here to tell us what's good and what's shit when it comes to guns.[/QUOTE] And you're the same guy who went out and got an A1 model DMPS AR15. (the cheapest way to get into an AR15) You're lowballing on firearms. That's fine, not everyone is rich, but you DO get what you pay for. So don't bag on shit just because you can't afford it. Maybe this will help you understand: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsewsolPyBU[/media] [editline]06:32AM[/editline] [QUOTE=JoshuaC;16072509]Springfield Armory has built their reputation on the stupidity of their customers.[/QUOTE] Hahaha, sorry but you really are clueless.

[QUOTE=DrMortician;16072544]And you're the same guy who went out and got an A1 model DMPS AR15. (the cheapest way to get into an AR15) You're lowballing on firearms. That's fine, not everyone is rich, but you DO get what you pay for. So don't bag on shit just because you can't afford it. Maybe this will help you understand: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsewsolPyBU[/media] [editline]06:32AM[/editline] Hahaha, sorry but you really are clueless.[/QUOTE] lmfao

[QUOTE=HarryLerman;16072645]lmfao[/QUOTE] I second that.

[QUOTE=Camundongo;16067429]Is the LMG version of the SA80 any good? My guess is no, but I might be surprised. I guess in part it depends on whether it's based on the L85A1 or the L85A2.[/QUOTE] All LSWs will have been upgraded to A2 standards. Generally they're for marksmen now, the longer barrel and bipod make it more appropriate. I don't see the point in having a LMG with a 30 round mag. Anyway, the Minimi is Britain's LMG now.

Alright everyone. I really don't like it when this thread descends into "this pistol vs. that pistol" and "you either spend 5,000,000$ on a 9mm or it may as well be made in the Kyber Pass". For the most part if a gun is selling very well and large numbers of people are very happy with it, there is a reason for that. Truly craptastic guns that you need to avoid like the plague are the exception, rather than the rule. At the same time if you have more money to spend you may as well invest in some of the better stuff out there. When it comes to handguns check out what you can get in your price range, try everything and go with what you're the most comfortable with. Anyway, with that conflict hopefully resolved I must inform you all that I'll be leaving on another 3-day trip. Before I leave I want to write an article.

[QUOTE=Bean-O;16075572]Alright everyone. I really don't like it when this thread descends into "this pistol vs. that pistol" and "you either spend 5,000,000$ on a 9mm or it may as well be made in the Kyber Pass". For the most part if a gun is selling very well and large numbers of people are very happy with it, there is a reason for that. Truly craptastic guns that you need to avoid like the plague are the exception, rather than the rule. At the same time if you have more money to spend you may as well invest in some of the better stuff out there. When it comes to handguns check out what you can get in your price range, try everything and go with what you're the most comfortable with. Anyway, with that conflict hopefully resolved I must inform you all that I'll be leaving on another 3-day trip. Before I leave I want to write an article.[/QUOTE]Couldn't be said better. Any thoughts on what the next article will be?

71)Springfield 03. [img]http://world.guns.ru/rifle/m1903-44r.jpg[/img] The origins of the '03 date back to the turn of the 20th century. More specifically the Spanish-American war. At the time the US army was armed with mostly single-shot 45-70 trapdoor Springfields or bolt-action Krag-Jørgensen rifles. Meanwhile the Spanish had Mausers. Even though the guys with the Mausers didn't win, the effectiveness of that design proved to be significantly superior to that of the Krag which was by contrast flimsier, less powerful, with less range, a lower rate of fire and with no clip reloading capability. So like any good soldier, pretty much everyone in the US army suddenly wanted one. While the US government was tempted to adopt the German rifle a decision was ultimately made to stick with an American company. Springfield made a prototype in 1901 which was the result of extensive dissections of captured Spanish Mausers. Elements of the Mauser were mixed with the Krag already in service. Indeed, so sure were they that this rifle would be adopted that they started mass-producing parts before any order to make them was sent out. Ironically so many features were copied from the Spanish Mausers that Springfield had to pay a 200,000$ royalty to Mauser. But it wasn't adopted. A number of changes needed to be made. When they finally implemented those changes (such as a different type of bayonet, at the personal request of Theodore Roosevelt) it was adopted in 1903 as the Springfield 03 along with a new caliber called "30.03". But shortly after Germany patented the sharp-nosed "spitzer" bullet which had superior ballistics. The 30.03 was redesigned with that feature as the 30.06, the rifles meant to fire it had their sights recalibrated to accommodate. The result of all this hard work was a real gem. It was deadly accurate, even with open sights. But the gun itself had a very short profile. This meant that the cavalry and the infantry could carry the exact same weapon. There was no need for a specialized, shortened version. Thus it was light, accurate, powerful and could be shot quickly enough to be a combat bolt-action. Although it served well in WW1 production could never adequately meet demand. Still, almost a million were made. A number manufactured before the war had used a flawed metallurgical process in the making of the receiver and there were a number of incidents involving exploding rifles, but this problem was swiftly addressed. All very good, but there was one more curious chapter in its history before the US army entered WW2. Learning from the experiences of trench fighting in WW1, the US government began testing what would become known as the "Pedersen Device". The idea was simple. You remove the bolt from your 03, install this thing and suddenly your bolt-action rifle is a semi-automatic .30 caliber rifle. When equipped it fired strait-cased .30 caliber "pistol" bullets out of a 40 round magazine. However this never caught on as problems with the device and its ammunition came up. There are a number of rifles that still have holes cut in the receiver to serve as ejection ports, but most of the devices have since been destroyed. Today they remain incredibly rare and valuable, the ammunition for them isn't much easier to find than the device itself. In the 1930s the 03 was redesigned with a type "c" stock that had a semi-pistol grip. This was known as the m1903a1. During WW2 the US army was already using the M1 Garand, but a shortage of 03 rifles meant that they wanted to make a few more to adequately supplement the semi-automatics. Remington and the Smith-Corona Typewriter Company were given this task. During production Remington was using tooling left over from WW1. It was severely worn and Remington began to make various simplifications to the design. Many parts were stamped, rather than machined. The rear sights were replaced with simpler peephole sights, similar to that of the M1 Garand. This simplified variant became known as the M1903a3. About the same time a sniper version entered production. It had no iron sights, instead, it had a M73 2.2x scope. This is known as the M1903a4. It is essentially the same thing as the a3 only accurized and shipped out of the factory with a scope for sniper use. After WW2 most of the 03s became essentially obsolete. The Garand had proved itself. It went on to fight in Korea and while the 03 did follow it, that was only in limited numbers. The longest-lasting variant was the a4. It saw use in Korea and stayed in production and service well into the 1960s, seeing extensive use in Vietnam as well. With so many of these rifles made and eventually phased out it is little surprise that almost all ended up in the hands of American civilians. It essentially created and popularized the 30.06 as a civilian hunting caliber. Even though it no longer sees military service, the 30.06 is almost as popular a civilian rifle caliber as it gets. Surplus 03 rifles are often snatched up by collectors and shooters alike. Unlike many other bolt-action rifles they often demand a pretty high price, sometimes as much as 1,000$ but it depends on the variant. If it has been sporterized that does hurt the value significantly. The biggest source of these weapons is the US government's Civilian Marksmanship Program which sells them as well as M1 Garands and Carbines to civilians for about 500$. But that isn't to say all of the Springfield 03 rifles saw military service. There are also a number that were built for the civilian market, often with the hunter in mind. They are also still used as drilling rifles, since the overall length and relative light weight makes them well-suited for that purpose. So it has just about everything. Well over a million made, almost 60 years of service, makes a great deer-killer, tack-driver or collector's item. Really, what more could you ask of a rifle?

[QUOTE=Bean-O;16075572]Alright everyone. I really don't like it when this thread descends into "this pistol vs. that pistol" and "you either spend 5,000,000$ on a 9mm or it may as well be made in the Kyber Pass". For the most part if a gun is selling very well and large numbers of people are very happy with it, there is a reason for that. Truly craptastic guns that you need to avoid like the plague are the exception, rather than the rule. At the same time if you have more money to spend you may as well invest in some of the better stuff out there. When it comes to handguns check out what you can get in your price range, try everything and go with what you're the most comfortable with. Anyway, with that conflict hopefully resolved I must inform you all that I'll be leaving on another 3-day trip. Before I leave I want to write an article.[/QUOTE] My point was, you get what you pay for. And track records only go so far, eventually people have to learn to move on to better things. If you pay $1000+ for a custom 1911, it'll put your glock to shame in every single way you could possibly imagine. Don't allow yourself to become so delusional you think any differently. The exception being custom stuff made so tight it barely functions in adverse conditions.

I think there is a point where a gun can serve its purpose adequately and there is no use spending the extra 1,000$ to get one that is marginally better. It's a simple case of diminishing returns. You start off with a 200$ pistol. Wow, it sucks. Sell it, get your money back, spend an extra 200$, significant improvement. Sell your 400$ gun, spend an extra 400$ on top of that. Now you have an 800$ gun. Another significant improvement, you have a pretty darn good gun in your hands now. But the improvement over the last is not as great as the improvement of the 400$ gun over the 200$ one. So you sell the 800$ gun spend an extra 400$. At this point the improvement of your 1,200$ is only marginal over the 800$ one. So you can keep spending all of this money but it turns into a case of "How much more are you willing to spend on one gun for ever more marginal improvements over the last?". Although I grant you this may be a bit of an over-simplification since the firearm market is so complicated and the choices are more complicated than that but my point still stands. Basic economics really. There is a point at which you are just tossing your money into a shredder.

war-crazed kids

[QUOTE=Bean-O;16076256]71)Springfield 03. [img]http://world.guns.ru/rifle/m1903-44r.jpg[/img] The origins of the '03 date back to the turn of the 20th century. More specifically the Spanish-American war. At the time the US army was armed with mostly single-shot 45-70 trapdoor Springfields or bolt-action Krag-Jørgensen rifles. Meanwhile the Spanish had Mausers. Even though the guys with the Mausers didn't win, the effectiveness of that design proved to be significantly superior to that of the Krag which was by contrast flimsier, less powerful, with less range, a lower rate of fire and with no clip reloading capability. So like any good soldier, pretty much everyone in the US army suddenly wanted one. While the US government was tempted to adopt the German rifle a decision was ultimately made to stick with an American company. Springfield made a prototype in 1901 which was the result of extensive dissections of captured Spanish Mausers. Elements of the Mauser were mixed with the Krag already in service. Indeed, so sure were they that this rifle would be adopted that they started mass-producing parts before any order to make them was sent out. Ironically so many features were copied from the Spanish Mausers that Springfield had to pay a 200,000$ royalty to Mauser. But it wasn't adopted. A number of changes needed to be made. When they finally implemented those changes (such as a different type of bayonet, at the personal request of Theodore Roosevelt) it was adopted in 1903 as the Springfield 03 along with a new caliber called "30.03". But shortly after Germany patented the sharp-nosed "spitzer" bullet which had superior ballistics. The 30.03 was redesigned with that feature as the 30.06, the rifles meant to fire it had their sights recalibrated to accommodate. The result of all this hard work was a real gem. It was deadly accurate, even with open sights. But the gun itself had a very short profile. This meant that the cavalry and the infantry could carry the exact same weapon. There was no need for a specialized, shortened version. Thus it was light, accurate, powerful and could be shot quickly enough to be a combat bolt-action. Although it served well in WW1 production could never adequately meet demand. Still, almost a million were made. A number manufactured before the war had used a flawed metallurgical process in the making of the receiver and there were a number of incidents involving exploding rifles, but this problem was swiftly addressed. All very good, but there was one more curious chapter in its history before the US army entered WW2. Learning from the experiences of trench fighting in WW1, the US government began testing what would become known as the "Pedersen Device". The idea was simple. You remove the bolt from your 03, install this thing and suddenly your bolt-action rifle is a semi-automatic .30 caliber rifle. When equipped it fired strait-cased .30 caliber "pistol" bullets out of a 40 round magazine. However this never caught on as problems with the device and its ammunition came up. There are a number of rifles that still have holes cut in the receiver to serve as ejection ports, but most of the devices have since been destroyed. Today they remain incredibly rare and valuable, the ammunition for them isn't much easier to find than the device itself. In the 1930s the 03 was redesigned with a type "c" stock that had a semi-pistol grip. This was known as the m1903a1. During WW2 the US army was already using the M1 Garand, but a shortage of 03 rifles meant that they wanted to make a few more to adequately supplement the semi-automatics. Remington and the Smith-Corona Typewriter Company were given this task. During production Remington was using tooling left over from WW1. It was severely worn and Remington began to make various simplifications to the design. Many parts were stamped, rather than machined. The rear sights were replaced with simpler peephole sights, similar to that of the M1 Garand. This simplified variant became known as the M1903a3. About the same time a sniper version entered production. It had no iron sights, instead, it had a M73 2.2x scope. This is known as the M1903a4. It is essentially the same thing as the a3 only accurized and shipped out of the factory with a scope for sniper use. After WW2 most of the 03s became essentially obsolete. The Garand had proved itself. It went on to fight in Korea and while the 03 did follow it, that was only in limited numbers. The longest-lasting variant was the a4. It saw use in Korea and stayed in production and service well into the 1960s, seeing extensive use in Vietnam as well. With so many of these rifles made and eventually phased out it is little surprise that almost all ended up in the hands of American civilians. It essentially created and popularized the 30.06 as a civilian hunting caliber. Even though it no longer sees military service, the 30.06 is almost as popular a civilian rifle caliber as it gets. Surplus 03 rifles are often snatched up by collectors and shooters alike. Unlike many other bolt-action rifles they often demand a pretty high price, sometimes as much as 1,000$ but it depends on the variant. If it has been sporterized that does hurt the value significantly. The biggest source of these weapons is the US government's Civilian Marksmanship Program which sells them as well as M1 Garands and Carbines to civilians for about 500$. But that isn't to say all of the Springfield 03 rifles saw military service. There are also a number that were built for the civilian market, often with the hunter in mind. They are also still used as drilling rifles, since the overall length and relative light weight makes them well-suited for that purpose. So it has just about everything. Well over a million made, almost 60 years of service, makes a great deer-killer, tack-driver or collector's item. Really, what more could you ask of a rifle?[/QUOTE] Really is an excellent rifle. I've got an A3; accuracy is great, the balance on it is perfect, for drill or for shooting, and the bullet's got a nice punch to it. The best part is, I got mine for a bargain :)

[QUOTE=Bean-O;16076256]71)Springfield 03. [img]http://world.guns.ru/rifle/m1903-44r.jpg[/img] The origins of the '03 date back to the turn of the 20th century. More specifically the Spanish-American war. At the time the US army was armed with mostly single-shot 45-70 trapdoor Springfields or bolt-action Krag-Jørgensen rifles. Meanwhile the Spanish had Mausers. Even though the guys with the Mausers didn't win, the effectiveness of that design proved to be significantly superior to that of the Krag which was by contrast flimsier, less powerful, with less range, a lower rate of fire and with no clip reloading capability. So like any good soldier, pretty much everyone in the US army suddenly wanted one. While the US government was tempted to adopt the German rifle a decision was ultimately made to stick with an American company. Springfield made a prototype in 1901 which was the result of extensive dissections of captured Spanish Mausers. Elements of the Mauser were mixed with the Krag already in service. Indeed, so sure were they that this rifle would be adopted that they started mass-producing parts before any order to make them was sent out. Ironically so many features were copied from the Spanish Mausers that Springfield had to pay a 200,000$ royalty to Mauser. But it wasn't adopted. A number of changes needed to be made. When they finally implemented those changes (such as a different type of bayonet, at the personal request of Theodore Roosevelt) it was adopted in 1903 as the Springfield 03 along with a new caliber called "30.03". But shortly after Germany patented the sharp-nosed "spitzer" bullet which had superior ballistics. The 30.03 was redesigned with that feature as the 30.06, the rifles meant to fire it had their sights recalibrated to accommodate. The result of all this hard work was a real gem. It was deadly accurate, even with open sights. But the gun itself had a very short profile. This meant that the cavalry and the infantry could carry the exact same weapon. There was no need for a specialized, shortened version. Thus it was light, accurate, powerful and could be shot quickly enough to be a combat bolt-action. Although it served well in WW1 production could never adequately meet demand. Still, almost a million were made. A number manufactured before the war had used a flawed metallurgical process in the making of the receiver and there were a number of incidents involving exploding rifles, but this problem was swiftly addressed. All very good, but there was one more curious chapter in its history before the US army entered WW2. Learning from the experiences of trench fighting in WW1, the US government began testing what would become known as the "Pedersen Device". The idea was simple. You remove the bolt from your 03, install this thing and suddenly your bolt-action rifle is a semi-automatic .30 caliber rifle. When equipped it fired strait-cased .30 caliber "pistol" bullets out of a 40 round magazine. However this never caught on as problems with the device and its ammunition came up. There are a number of rifles that still have holes cut in the receiver to serve as ejection ports, but most of the devices have since been destroyed. Today they remain incredibly rare and valuable, the ammunition for them isn't much easier to find than the device itself. In the 1930s the 03 was redesigned with a type "c" stock that had a semi-pistol grip. This was known as the m1903a1. During WW2 the US army was already using the M1 Garand, but a shortage of 03 rifles meant that they wanted to make a few more to adequately supplement the semi-automatics. Remington and the Smith-Corona Typewriter Company were given this task. During production Remington was using tooling left over from WW1. It was severely worn and Remington began to make various simplifications to the design. Many parts were stamped, rather than machined. The rear sights were replaced with simpler peephole sights, similar to that of the M1 Garand. This simplified variant became known as the M1903a3. About the same time a sniper version entered production. It had no iron sights, instead, it had a M73 2.2x scope. This is known as the M1903a4. It is essentially the same thing as the a3 only accurized and shipped out of the factory with a scope for sniper use. After WW2 most of the 03s became essentially obsolete. The Garand had proved itself. It went on to fight in Korea and while the 03 did follow it, that was only in limited numbers. The longest-lasting variant was the a4. It saw use in Korea and stayed in production and service well into the 1960s, seeing extensive use in Vietnam as well. With so many of these rifles made and eventually phased out it is little surprise that almost all ended up in the hands of American civilians. It essentially created and popularized the 30.06 as a civilian hunting caliber. Even though it no longer sees military service, the 30.06 is almost as popular a civilian rifle caliber as it gets. Surplus 03 rifles are often snatched up by collectors and shooters alike. Unlike many other bolt-action rifles they often demand a pretty high price, sometimes as much as 1,000$ but it depends on the variant. If it has been sporterized that does hurt the value significantly. The biggest source of these weapons is the US government's Civilian Marksmanship Program which sells them as well as M1 Garands and Carbines to civilians for about 500$. But that isn't to say all of the Springfield 03 rifles saw military service. There are also a number that were built for the civilian market, often with the hunter in mind. They are also still used as drilling rifles, since the overall length and relative light weight makes them well-suited for that purpose. So it has just about everything. Well over a million made, almost 60 years of service, makes a great deer-killer, tack-driver or collector's item. Really, what more could you ask of a rifle?[/QUOTE] Nice article!

Great article as always Bean-O.

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;16069096]Dude, the Steyr-Mannlicher M1895 has to be done. It's simple pull back push forward bolt is something worth talking about![/QUOTE] not before the K31 mister [editline]06:30PM[/editline] oh yeah, apparently Saiga 5.45 rifles are beginning to show up at distributors I can't really explain how psyched I am for this; I am going to convert it into this: [img]http://www.k-var.com/shop/images/d_1208.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=Pvt. Ryan;16079026]not before the K31 mister [editline]06:30PM[/editline] oh yeah, apparently Saiga 5.45 rifles are beginning to show up at distributors I can't really explain how psyched I am for this; I am going to convert it into this: [img]http://www.k-var.com/shop/images/d_1208.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] Wow, I may be saving my pennies. I'd love to have a 5.45 especially a saiga version.

[QUOTE=Bean-O;16076256]Krag-Jørgensen[/QUOTE] You wrote it right *sniff* I love my Krag :love:

Wait, I thought Saiga just referred to the shotgun. Since when has it been a company, because I'm certain that Saigas are made by Izhmash, the same guys who make the AK series. Anyway, seeing as Izhmash makes AK-74s and AK-101s, wouldn't it be easier to just buy one of those, because they're chambered in the same caliber whilst (to my knowledge, which is practically nothing more that scraps garnered from the internet) being cheaper.

Saiga is what they call a series of Kalashnikov-based rifles and shotguns meant for civilians. And don't tell me they're not based off the Kalashnikov because the gas system is tweaked or something like that. You know what I'm talking about.

[QUOTE=lintz;16079597]Wait, I thought Saiga just referred to the shotgun. Since when has it been a company, because I'm certain that Saigas are made by Izhmash, the same guys who make the AK series.[/QUOTE] Saiga is just a civilian AK, and a little better made. They come in practically every caliber, and gauge.

[QUOTE=Bean-O;16079650]Saiga is what they call a series of Kalashnikov-based rifles and shotguns meant for civilians. And don't tell me they're not based off the Kalashnikov because the gas system is tweaked or something like that. You know what I'm talking about.[/QUOTE] I wasn't going to say that the Saiga isn't based off the AK, because there are too many similarities to say it's not.

[QUOTE=DrMortician;16079659]Saiga is just a civilian AK, and a little better made. They come in practically every caliber, and gauge.[/QUOTE] They are also a real bargain. Sometimes costing just as much if not less than the knockoffs. They cost around 400$ while all the WASRs cost 500. Although the one thing that sucks about Saigas is that they don't take AK mags.

[QUOTE=Bean-O;15971536]65)CZ-75 series ...ere's a compact, a subcompact, a .22LR, an ambidextrous variant called the CZ-85 even a select-fire version that went nowhere. It mainly sees law enforcement service in countries such as Finland, Poland, Lithuania, [b]Slovenia[/b], Iran, Honduras and it's native Czechoslovakia. It is also copied by Norinco in China where it sees some use and some have been sold to North Korea... [/QUOTE] It was replaced by the M92fs.

[QUOTE=Bean-O;16079718]They are also a real bargain. Sometimes costing just as much if not less than the knockoffs. They cost around 400$ while all the WASRs cost 500. Although the one thing that sucks about Saigas is that they don't take AK mags.[/QUOTE] yeah but they're really hard to find in stock online at the msrp I've seen lots at gun shows but they're all like 450-500 dollars; I just hope they import tons of the 5.45 version. [editline]07:24PM[/editline] [QUOTE=lintz;16079597]Wait, I thought Saiga just referred to the shotgun. Since when has it been a company, because I'm certain that Saigas are made by Izhmash, the same guys who make the AK series. Anyway, seeing as Izhmash makes AK-74s and AK-101s, wouldn't it be easier to just buy one of those, because they're chambered in the same caliber whilst (to my knowledge, which is practically nothing more that scraps garnered from the internet) being cheaper.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.raacfirearms.com/[/url] they're actual military rifles pulled off the line in early stages of production afaik, but I'm sure that's just hyperbole

Personally I'd stick with 5.56 since it's more common here anyway. Or 7.62x39 since it's just as common and cheaper.

[QUOTE=Bean-O;16079718]They are also a real bargain. Sometimes costing just as much if not less than the knockoffs. They cost around 400$ while all the WASRs cost 500. Although the one thing that sucks about Saigas is that they don't take AK mags.[/QUOTE] The saiga rifles do. Saiga 12s fetch over $600 here unconverted. Converted ones are over $1k.

[QUOTE=Bean-O;16080311]Personally I'd stick with 5.56 since it's more common here anyway. Or 7.62x39 since it's just as common and cheaper.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.aimsurplus.com/acatalog/Russian_5.45x39_FMJ.html[/url] [url]http://www.jgsales.com/product_info.php/ammo-for-rifles/5-45x39/p/5-45x39-wolf-fmj%2C-1000-rds-/cPath/12_37/products_id/523[/url] [url]http://www.jgsales.com/product_info.php/ammo-for-rifles/5-45x39/p/5-45x39-wolf-fmj%2C-20-rd-boxes-/cPath/12_37/products_id/459[/url] I'm a purist so I'll get the 5.45 one and convert it to a serious business Russian AK-74 reproduction to have as a representation piece. I care more about originality than functionality, but that's just me. Not saying that a 7.62 Saiga conversion done to faithfully recreate an AKM wouldn't be cool, though- I just like the cheap ammo for a 5.45 Saiga.