Buying an AK-74

Off Topic
41

[quote]Dirty Tiger wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Dirty Tiger wrote:
…
The scarcity of Russian ammo is what made me trade in my SKS for a .357 Levergun…It only takes a stroke of the pen to make all foreign ammo unavailable.

You might want to look into handloading.

I have enough 7.62x39 but I have been interested in a .357 lever action.

What do you have? Details please.

Its a Winchester 94 Trapper.

16’ BBL with an XS Ghostring

XS Scout Mount with a Millet red-dot mounted on quick-release rings.

I just started handloading .357 to about .38sp+p power.

It has low recoil, it’s handy as hell and you can use the scout mounted red-dot with both eyes open.

It’s a great gun but I think I still like Marlins better…I had to replace the shell ejector.
[/quote]

Sounds sweet. The Winchester looks better than the Marlin even if the Marlin is more reliable.

How much did it set you back? Did it come with the ghost ring site or did you need a gunsmith to install it?

The red dot sites are sweet too. Does it block the ghost ring site?

42

As far as where to buy the 5.45x39 ammo, check out www.sportsmansguide.com

They have a Wolf-brand case of 1000 rounds for $120, which is a touch more than the 7.62x39, but about the same as NATO the 5.56x45.

I’ve thought about getting the AK-74, as well, since it’s not nearly as common as the AK-47.

43

[quote]pomofo wrote:
csuson wrote:
lol, cruel, but I’ll take the joke. Actually, it’s semi-auto. Of course, you have to have a full-auto permit to own a full auto weapon…

No such thing as a full auto permit. You go through a rigorous application procedure, background check, and pay $200 to transfer the tax stamp on each Class III gun you purchase.[/quote]

True, but it’s definitely worth the trouble. You haven’t lived until you’ve squeezed off a full 30 rd mag from an MP5 in less than 3 seconds.

44

I’ll vouch for the Wolf ammo. It’s cheap, but it punches holes in paper just fine, with (at most) a handfull of duds in a case.

45

[quote]E-man wrote:
I’m all for guns but it still freaks me out how easy it is to get them. I still am baffled there aren’t more public shootings. America truly is the land of hippocrites.

steroids to help build an amazing physique = prison

.50 cal Barrett sniper rifle to shoot down 747 on takeoff = $9,000.
[/quote]

I should probably let this go, but it struck a nerve, and I guess I just need to rant. The .50 cal rifle taking down a 747 idea sounds pretty scary, but it’s pretty bogus. I’m not going to say it’s impossible because it might happen. However, people that talk about it usually have little to no experience with guns of any kind, let alone long-range (for arguments sake, let’s say over 100 yards, the range of most of the rifle ranges I’m familiar with).

It’s not extremely hard to hit a stationary object at 100 yards with a rifle given range conditions. Add some wind and things get a little more difficult. Unless you get inside the airport perimiter (which is entirely plausible given lack of security), you’re going to be farther than 100 yards. That adds some complexity, but not much. However, the 747 isn’t going to be sitting still.

They move relatively quickly when they are trying to take off. You’re going to have to lead the plane by quite a bit. Even if you’re straight on to the plane it’s attitude and altitude will be changing approaching take of. Depending on your angle, you’ll be leading the plane by 100 feet or more.

I’m nowhere near an expert on this. I know a bit about guns and enjoy shooting them. I feel fairly competent with a rifle and I still absolutely suck at long ranges. Especially on moving targets. I do know that most of the long-range shots made by very skilled snipers have been on human-sized targets that were stationary or moving much more slowly than an airplane.

Airplanes are much more rugged than the average human (only slightly more rugged that Professor X, but he’s not average :slight_smile: ). A half-inch hole, even several half-inch holes won’t do much to the plane. I won’t contend that there is a chance that one bullet could hit something so critical the plane would come down. Stranger things have happened.

I apologize for the length of this. Just something I feel strongly about. For some info from guys smarter than me about it, here’s a couple of links. I apologize in advance for Publicola calling people names. I think that gets people’s backs up and makes them defensive. If you can get past that, he has some interesting numbers that he crunched on elevation, leading the plane, etc.

(info about bullet holes is in the last 3 paragraphs)

http://publicola.mu.nu/archives/2004/05/05/50_caliber_rifle_ban_introduced_in_the_house.html
(again I wish he wouldn’t resort to name calling, but that’s his style)

Hijack over. Sorry. Hopy you enjoy the new rifle.

46

[quote]rottiesrule wrote:

The .50 cal rifle taking down a 747 idea sounds pretty scary, but it’s pretty bogus. [/quote]

I’ve seen video of a .50 EASILY penetrating a 3-inch solid steel manhole cover at 350 yards. Now a 747’s skin is no-where near 3-inches thick or it would never get off the ground. Second, I’ve been to Miami several times and I love to watch the airliners come in. I stood at the perimeter gate and the planes were so close overhead the vorticies would sweep your hat off.

No more than 200 feet high. Something that big that close would be difficult NOT to miss. It would be difficult to find such an important location on the plane that would bring the sucker down but didn’t a small piece of foam impact on takeoff bring down the space shuttle Columbia upon re-entry. I guess what I’m trying to say is if someone wants it bad enough anything is possible. Hopefully there’s not that many crazy fucks out there but history confirms that there most certainly is. I don’t think the .50 cal and other large weapons should be banned but definately more heavily restricted.

47

[quote]E-man wrote:
rottiesrule wrote:

The .50 cal rifle taking down a 747 idea sounds pretty scary, but it’s pretty bogus.

I’ve seen video of a .50 EASILY penetrating a 3-inch solid steel manhole cover at 350 yards. Now a 747’s skin is no-where near 3-inches thick or it would never get off the ground. Second, I’ve been to Miami several times and I love to watch the airliners come in. I stood at the perimeter gate and the planes were so close overhead the vorticies would sweep your hat off.

No more than 200 feet high. Something that big that close would be difficult NOT to miss. It would be difficult to find such an important location on the plane that would bring the sucker down but didn’t a small piece of foam impact on takeoff bring down the space shuttle Columbia upon re-entry. I guess what I’m trying to say is if someone wants it bad enough anything is possible. Hopefully there’s not that many crazy fucks out there but history confirms that there most certainly is. I don’t think the .50 cal and other large weapons should be banned but definately more heavily restricted.

[/quote]

That .50 cal round has been in jets as it’s ammo in the machine gun. It is an anit-aircraft round.

48

[quote]E-man wrote:
rottiesrule wrote:

The .50 cal rifle taking down a 747 idea sounds pretty scary, but it’s pretty bogus.

I’ve seen video of a .50 EASILY penetrating a 3-inch solid steel manhole cover at 350 yards. Now a 747’s skin is no-where near 3-inches thick or it would never get off the ground.
[/quote]

I’m not disagreeing that the .50 is a powerful round. However, the round that pierced the manhole cover was most likely the SLAP round which cannot be purchased by civilians. I know, if someone wants it bad enough, they’ll get it. Just wanted to point that out. A .30 caliber round from a .30 06 or a .308, or even better a .338 Lapau Magnum (created to have almost the same ballistic energy as the .50 but with a flatter trajectory) will penetrate a couple inches of steel with the correct round. They pose just as much danger in that case.

[quote] Second, I’ve been to Miami several times and I love to watch the airliners come in. I stood at the perimeter gate and the planes were so close overhead the vorticies would sweep your hat off.

No more than 200 feet high. Something that big that close would be difficult NOT to miss. It would be difficult to find such an important location on the plane that would bring the sucker down but didn’t a small piece of foam impact on takeoff bring down the space shuttle Columbia upon re-entry.
[/quote]

Again, until you’ve actually tried to target something moving that fast you don’t realize how difficult it is. Agreed, it’s a big ole plane, but the “important” parts that would bring it down are very small compared to the overall size. Also, standing at the perimter fence with a rifle the size of the .50 would attract some attention. The lightest .50’s are just over 20 pounds (compared to 7-10 pounds for an average hunting rifle). And those are the single-shot rifles. It would truly have to be a one-shot takedown with those. The magazine fed bolt action .50’s and the semi-automatic Barret M82 that started this whole thing with the politicians approach 30 pounds when they are loaded. Depending on the configuration (bullpup, size of the muzzle brake etc.) they can approach 4 feet long or better. Trying to leverage a rifle that size quickly enough to maintain a critical sight picture would be challenging at best. That’s if you’re standing. If you’re prone and using the bipod (which you’d have to do) you are slowed down in how fast you can move side-to-side and you are EXTREMELY limited in how much up-and-down movement you can do because of the position.

I hope you don’t think I’m trying to be a jerk. I know that nothing is impossible and it certainly could happen that someone used a .50 to take down an aircraft. However, they could just as easily use some of the “Magnum” caliber hunting rifles on the market. Or use the .45-70 (or .45-100 for Quigley fans) rifle that the buffalo hunters used hundreds of years ago. I guess the thing I’m most opposed to is the politicians jumping on the bandwagon with .50’s are evil. If they (bad guys) really wanted to take out an airliner, a simple RPG costs next to nothing, shoulder-fired SAM’s with guidance can be found on the black market for probably not much more than the $5,000+ of the .50 caliber rifle (I am just guessing at that, don’t peruse the black market much) plus the time and training it would take to become proficient enough to use it effectively. It’s a LOT harder than it looks or that one would think, even at only a couple hundred of feet. Never mind the mile away that some politicians have been talking about.

49

[quote]BIGRAGOO wrote:
E-man wrote:
rottiesrule wrote:

The .50 cal rifle taking down a 747 idea sounds pretty scary, but it’s pretty bogus.

I’ve seen video of a .50 EASILY penetrating a 3-inch solid steel manhole cover at 350 yards. Now a 747’s skin is no-where near 3-inches thick or it would never get off the ground. Second, I’ve been to Miami several times and I love to watch the airliners come in. I stood at the perimeter gate and the planes were so close overhead the vorticies would sweep your hat off.

No more than 200 feet high. Something that big that close would be difficult NOT to miss. It would be difficult to find such an important location on the plane that would bring the sucker down but didn’t a small piece of foam impact on takeoff bring down the space shuttle Columbia upon re-entry. I guess what I’m trying to say is if someone wants it bad enough anything is possible. Hopefully there’s not that many crazy fucks out there but history confirms that there most certainly is. I don’t think the .50 cal and other large weapons should be banned but definately more heavily restricted.

That .50 cal round has been in jets as it’s ammo in the machine gun. It is an anit-aircraft round.
[/quote]

Very true Big. However, when mounted on the jets there were multiple guns. And they were machine guns. Not single-shot or even semi-automatic. [edit] Most of [/edit] the ground-based AA .50’s were multiple barreled (the most famous one I’ve seen was the quad-50, holy cow that thing spit a lot of lead) because it took quite a few hits (unless you got the pilot of the other jet) to take the planes down. Most, if not all of the current fighters are using 20mm Vulcan cannons that are capable of firing up to 6,000 rounds per minute (on the ground, I believe they dial them back a bit in the air because firing that many rounds that fast has an adverse affect on airspeed). Even in WWII, the ground-troops preffered 20mm multi-barreled systems for anti-aircraft duty. Those systems were fully automatic spitting hundreds of rounds per minute (per barrel) and had gyroscopic sights (I think that’s right) to track the aircraft.

50

[quote]rottiesrule wrote:
E-man wrote:
rottiesrule wrote:

However, they could just as easily use some of the “Magnum” caliber hunting rifles on the market. Or use the .45-70 (or .45-100 for Quigley fans) rifle that the buffalo hunters used hundreds of years ago. [/quote]

Thats exactly what I realized when I was writing my post. Restricting one gun when 50 others are similarly powerful is useless. That puts us in dilemma we’re currently in with the govt. banning everything. Even that is pointless because as you mentioned the items can always be bought easily via the black market.

51

[quote]E-man wrote:
rottiesrule wrote:
E-man wrote:
rottiesrule wrote:

…

That puts us in dilemma we’re currently in with the govt. banning everything.

…
[/quote]

We are definitely in agreement on that point. :slight_smile:

52

I don’t think you could knock an airliner down with a single shot from a .50cal. They are rugged and unless you hit the pilot, at a critical point, in the landing or takeoff. It would take multiple shots.

I don’t think anyone could fire multiple shots, with a .50cal. rifle at a target moving at over 150mph. and make multiple vital hits. Maybe but I don’t think so. The propoganda value of even one hit would be great but I don’t think it would do much physical damage.

I shot a truck with an M-2. It’s an effective weapon with ball or slap ammo. Half a dozen rounds of ball tore the engine block apart.

An airliner with a rifle…would have to be a one in a million shot. My two cents.

53

[quote]rottiesrule wrote:

I’m not disagreeing that the .50 is a powerful round. However, the round that pierced the manhole cover was most likely the SLAP round which cannot be purchased by civilians. I know, if someone wants it bad enough, they’ll get it. Just wanted to point that out. A .30 caliber round from a .30 06 or a .308, or even better a .338 Lapau Magnum (created to have almost the same ballistic energy as the .50 but with a flatter trajectory) will penetrate a couple inches of steel with the correct round. They pose just as much danger in that case.

[/quote]

I’ve seen a crappy, run of the mill .30-30 hunting round fired from a short barreled lever gun punch a hole nearly through a 3/4 inch piece of plate steel at about 100 rounds. The same gun with a fmj round would have gone through, no doubt about it.

If we’re going to ban the BMG because it’s too powerful where do we draw the line? At .30 caliber? What about the .300 Weatherby mag or Win mag? What about the 7mm ultra mag? What about the .224 boz? That little devile will make mince meat out of personal body armor if you aren’t too far away. Same thing for the .224(?) weatherby or .220 swift.

If you’re going to be a jackass and do something illegal with a gun, it doesn’t matter what gun you have. I’d let people buy full auto’s, artillery pieces, whatever.

The caveat is, if we all have them, we get to kill the jackasses.

54

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Dirty Tiger wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Dirty Tiger wrote:
…
The scarcity of Russian ammo is what made me trade in my SKS for a .357 Levergun…It only takes a stroke of the pen to make all foreign ammo unavailable.

You might want to look into handloading.

I have enough 7.62x39 but I have been interested in a .357 lever action.

What do you have? Details please.

Its a Winchester 94 Trapper.

16’ BBL with an XS Ghostring

XS Scout Mount with a Millet red-dot mounted on quick-release rings.

I just started handloading .357 to about .38sp+p power.

It has low recoil, it’s handy as hell and you can use the scout mounted red-dot with both eyes open.

It’s a great gun but I think I still like Marlins better…I had to replace the shell ejector.

Sounds sweet. The Winchester looks better than the Marlin even if the Marlin is more reliable.

How much did it set you back? Did it come with the ghost ring site or did you need a gunsmith to install it?

The red dot sites are sweet too. Does it block the ghost ring site?[/quote]

Zap, The Ghost Ring = $90
The Scout Mount = $70

You cannot use the Ghost Ring with the Red Dot installed, that’s why I used Quick release rings. I can switch back and forth easily.

Any semi-intelligent human can install the Ghost Ring or Scout Mount in about 20 minutes.

You have to knock the factory sight out of it’s dovetail to install the scout rail, hence the ghost ring as backup.

55

[quote]Dirty Tiger wrote:
…
Zap, The Ghost Ring = $90
The Scout Mount = $70

You cannot use the Ghost Ring with the Red Dot installed, that’s why I used Quick release rings. I can switch back and forth easily.

Any semi-intelligent human can install the Ghost Ring or Scout Mount in about 20 minutes.

…

[/quote]

So I could probably do it in a few hours.

Sounds like a nice set up.

I have been thinking about a lever action for a long time but I hate the factory sites.

Thanks for the info.

56

[quote]hedo wrote:
I don’t think you could knock an airliner down with a single shot from a .50cal. They are rugged and unless you hit the pilot, at a critical point, in the landing or takeoff. It would take multiple shots.

I don’t think anyone could fire multiple shots, with a .50cal. rifle at a target moving at over 150mph. and make multiple vital hits. Maybe but I don’t think so. The propoganda value of even one hit would be great but I don’t think it would do much physical damage.

I shot a truck with an M-2. It’s an effective weapon with ball or slap ammo. Half a dozen rounds of ball tore the engine block apart.

An airliner with a rifle…would have to be a one in a million shot. My two cents.[/quote]

I agree 100% as making a single shot (even a .50) crash an airplane would be about the same odds as winning the lottery.

About the best you could hope for would be hitting a control system or a fuel tank and the plane would have to return to the field for an emergency landing.

It would be scary and a major inconvenience, but hardly a very good terrorist attack. Most people would probably laugh about how pathetic an attempt it would be…

57

I dunno. A .50 cal round through an engine would likely put it out of commission.

Hit in on takeoff and bad things would happen.

It would take a true marksman to make the shot.

Probably out of the question for most terrorist types.

58

[quote]E-man wrote:
I’m all for guns but it still freaks me out how easy it is to get them. I still am baffled there aren’t more public shootings. America truly is the land of hippocrites.

steroids to help build an amazing physique = prison

.50 cal Barrett sniper rifle to shoot down 747 on takeoff = $9,000.
[/quote]

You, sir, are a jackass.

So now you DON’T go to jail for shooting airplanes? Interesting…

Chris

59

[quote]pomofo wrote:
csuson wrote:
lol, cruel, but I’ll take the joke. Actually, it’s semi-auto. Of course, you have to have a full-auto permit to own a full auto weapon…

No such thing as a full auto permit. You go through a rigorous application procedure, background check, and pay $200 to transfer the tax stamp on each Class III gun you purchase.[/quote]

Still against the law to own a fully automatic weapon. Just go ask a police man instead of trying to figure out what the newspapers are saying. This is silliness, “A student is buying an automatic weapon?!?!?WTF?!?!?” - Get real.

I am pro-guns but think its silly that people assume you can go buy automatic weapons and bazookas. Automatic Weapon=Felony. End of story. kinda like Malitov Cocktail=Felony just to possess, no intent to use required.

60

[quote]ATOMemphis wrote:
pomofo wrote:
csuson wrote:
lol, cruel, but I’ll take the joke. Actually, it’s semi-auto. Of course, you have to have a full-auto permit to own a full auto weapon…

No such thing as a full auto permit. You go through a rigorous application procedure, background check, and pay $200 to transfer the tax stamp on each Class III gun you purchase.

Still against the law to own a fully automatic weapon. Just go ask a police man instead of trying to figure out what the newspapers are saying. This is silliness, “A student is buying an automatic weapon?!?!?WTF?!?!?” - Get real.

I am pro-guns but think its silly that people assume you can go buy automatic weapons and bazookas. Automatic Weapon=Felony. End of story. kinda like Malitov Cocktail=Felony just to possess, no intent to use required.[/quote]

Actually the legality of owning an automatic weapon (which is what Class III was referring to in the previous post) depends on the state you live in. As was stated, if you pass the (very rigorous) background check and have gone through the application process correctly, you pay the $200 stamp tax and can own a fully automatic weapon. There are a BUNCH of regulations on it (is it still true they have to be pre-1984 manufacture?), but you can own them. Also, the $200 isn’t a one-time thing, it has to be payed for each Class III weapon you wish to purchase.

Bazookas I know nothing about :). I’m guessing that’s definitely out of the legal realm though.