Time to get another weapon! BUT WHAT!?

[Patriot]

The GSG looks great 1wrx7. I imagine that the stocks are probably stronger than they feel. You had mentioned that they felt cheap but they probably wanted to keep it light weight.

 

[vtunderground]

Some shotgun ideas:

Benelli M4 - http://www.benelliusa.com/shotguns/benelli_m4.php
The Benelli M2 is still available in a tactical version too.


Mossberg 930 - http://www.mossberg.com/products/default.asp?id=32&section=products


Remington briefly made their 11-87 with an 18" barrel & magazine extension. If you can find it, that should be a decent gun.

 

[Sway]

I had the itch for something a little different awhile back and picked up a CZ import Sa VZ58 Sporter. While it looks like and AK it's a very different animal and shares nothing with it other than the 7.62x39 round. After market support is growing for it and spare parts are easy to find www.czechpoint-usa.com is a good source.

Clone receivers are available some work good and some don't just stay with the true import D-Technic receiver and you will be happy, CZ-USA link http://cz-usa.com/products/view/vz-58-tactical-sporter/

VZ-58 Tactical Sporter and Colt LE6920 M4

This rifle is definitely worth a look and doing some research on

Later
Kelly

 

[QtrHorse]

I found a GSG-5 in stock at another shop in my area... I'll be picking it up tomorrow And it is priced properly, not the crazy mark up:thumbsup:

I almost bought one today but a good friend mentioned that one of our mutual friends had a S&W M&P15-22 and really liked it. He is going to let me shoot it this weekend. I really like the look and heavy barrel of the M&P .22 plus I can get one cheaper than the GSG-5.

Either way I now know what my next weapon will be, a tactical .22.

 

[1wrx7]

I was looking at the S&W .22 and the Colt versions. If I couldn't get the GSG I would have bought one of those without question. Since I have a couple of AR's already I wanted the look/feel of the MP5. I just read an article about the S&W and they were very positive about it. Let us know what you think when you shoot it.

 

[blasterman]

Pesonally I'm bored with the .22 / .223 / 5.56×45 firing guns. You can only put so many pencil thick holes through targets at 3000fps before wanting to move on. Also, the classic AR 'ker-chung' feel of the recoil starts to feel toy-ish after awhile.

For this reason I find the 9mm guns a lot more fun to shoot. They might not have the 'phaser-rifle' accuracy and penetration at 200meters, but so what.

As for 7.62 x 39, I'm simply not an AK fan and prefer a well built *Russian* SKS. However, the VZ-58 looks like a lot of fun to shoot without feeling like your rounds are tumbling end over end like they do with an AK-47.

 

[Fenris]

I remember reading about an AR-15 or M-16 or something, that was chambered for either .243 or .308 -- but that was 30+ years ago. I GUESS they got it built -- might be an interesting thing to shoot.

The AR-10 shoots 308.

 

[LukeA]

I remember reading about an AR-15 or M-16 or something, that was chambered for either .243 or .308 -- but that was 30+ years ago. I GUESS they got it built -- might be an interesting thing to shoot.

Stoner's design for what would become the M-16 was originally chambered in .308. So there was a .308 M-16 before there ever was a .223//5.56 one.

 

[LukeA]

Pesonally I'm bored with the .22 / .223 / 5.56×45 firing guns. You can only put so many pencil thick holes through targets at 3000fps before wanting to move on. Also, the classic AR 'ker-chung' feel of the recoil starts to feel toy-ish after awhile.

It's not "AR-style," if anything it's "Garand-style" or "gas-operated-rifle-style." Guns were ker-chunging well before the AR-15, although putting the bolt return spring right next to the face ("now with extra vibration!") is an AR/M-16 idea.

 

[Patriot]

Pesonally I'm bored with the .22 / .223 / 5.56×45 firing guns. You can only put so many pencil thick holes through targets at 3000fps before wanting to move on. Also, the classic AR 'ker-chung' feel of the recoil starts to feel toy-ish after awhile.

For this reason I find the 9mm guns a lot more fun to shoot. They might not have the 'phaser-rifle' accuracy and penetration at 200meters, but so what.

As for 7.62 x 39, I'm simply not an AK fan and prefer a well built *Russian* SKS. However, the VZ-58 looks like a lot of fun to shoot without feeling like your rounds are tumbling end over end like they do with an AK-47.

You've pretty much just eliminated any rifle round, since most are under 9mm diameter and travel at high velocity and exchanged it for one specific and un-energetic (from a relative standoint) pistol caliber. If a 9mm hole is that much fun for you I was just thinking that you'd really enjoy throwing rocks at cardboard boxes.

I just thought that was an very different way of looking at it since a semi-auto 9mm carbine essentially sounds and feels more anemic than any .223 rifle while also having less effect on reactive targets such as cans and bottles, due to having less energy. Speaking of phaser accuracy, a 9mm carbine is still capable of 3-4" groups at 100 yards but I'm also not sure why you would find inaccuracy satisfying even if the 9mm was indeed inaccurate, which it isn't, just slower.

With regards to the AK-47, I've never experienced "feeling like rounds are tumbling end over end" and can't even guess what you may be speaking of. The round itself is traveling close to 2300fps and is at least as accurate as the 9mm that you enjoy, although you didn't mention what 9mm firearm you're referring too, only the caliber itself which left me baffled. I'm not yet trying to say that you've been wrong about anything, only trying to understand what language you're speaking since my experiences have been nothing like yours. :thinking:

 

[blasterman]

You've pretty much just eliminated any rifle round, since most are under 9mm diameter and travel at high velocity

Who cares what other guns shoot? A subsonic .22 shell makes a much bigger hole in 1/8" sheet metal than a 5.56×45. So does a 50cal. Does this conclude a 50cal and a .22 have similiar energy levels? Uh, no.

a semi-auto 9mm carbine essentially sounds and feels more anemic than any .223 rifle while also having less effect on reactive targets such as cans and bottles, due to having less energy.

Stop shooting cans and bottles. One of our favorite targets is bowling pins because they'll tolerate much more abuse being made out of hard maple and dense plastic. At 200meters you can hit a standing bowling pin dead center with a M-16 and often it just wobbles because the cross section of the round is so small compared to it's velocity. They round just leaves a burnt scorch on the plastic and a little hole, and keeps on going. The pin just wobbles.

A bowling pin hit with a 9mm at 200meters get knocked over, and more damage is done, but the round won't penetrate through the wood and plastic. If I switch to hunting rounds in my SKS or my buddies AK we shred it much faster than a 5.56×45. When we start lighting up with the FN-FALs and .308 things get messy fast and we run out of pins. Now, given it's the holidays, frozen turkeys are hoot with .308 and hollow points, but that's if you don't have to clean up the mess.

Simply put, a good deal of the energy in 5.56×45 round is wasted because it's designed to tumble, break, and hopefully hit a vital organ. For under 100meters in a combat situation I'll take 9mm. For over 200meters .308. It's ironic because we have a lot of Vietnam vets in our little gun group, and they aren't fans of the M-16.

Which brings me to another gripe about the M-16, and that's the classic round/oval shot groupings of the thing due to improperly dampened 'mattel action' recoil. Only a few people gripe about this...guess it's due to flag waving or something.

In contrast to this is the rare Daewoo K2 my co-worker has, and even though the K2 fires the same 5.56×45 and even takes M-16 clips the difference in firing characteristics vs the M-16 is astounding. Rather than the vague, spongy recoil of the M-16 the K2 has a solid recoil with short but tight muzzle rise, and open sight shot groupings that are scary. Groupings with the K2 are tight horizontally with more variance vertically, which is on purpose given that's the kind of target you want to hit in fire-fight. Novices we've brough to the range who've never handled a fire-arm before make 2-3" shot grouping at 100meters on 62 grain Wolf. Then they try the M-16. Then they insist on the K2 because the M-16 'feels lame'.

If I'm shooting seriously with a AR/M-16 I prefer to take it all the way and use the longest barrel I can because it feels better balanced and groupings are tighter. Those shorty Bushmasters are the biggest pieces of junk you can own unless you actually like setting grass on fire. However, the K2 is flat out the deadliest and most precise open sight infantry rifle I've ever fired.

Speaking of phaser accuracy, a 9mm carbine is still capable of 3-4" groups at 100 yards

I have a 9mm Highpoint carbine, and that's on a bad day. As for bullet speed, we have a velocity meter we take to the range now and then and the HighPoint always scores within about 100fps of the AKs. I've also never been bested by an AK shooter in terms of shot groupings with the 9mm either. So, I'm having a hard time concluding what's so inferiour about the 9mm given my cheap HighPoint seems just as accurate, cheaper, legal, similiar muzzle velocity, and doesn't sound like wet frying pans trying to mate when you fire it. Otherwise the AK is a great weapon, as long as the opposing army is also using AK's, or rocks.

With regards to the AK-47, I've never experienced "feeling like rounds are tumbling end over end" and can't even guess what you may be speaking of.

All AKs we've owned and fired are notorious for leaving oval holes on target sheets more than any other gun (save for Bushmaster ARs with midget barrels). Even my clunky Chinese SKS doesn't do that. The barrel starts to warp after 3-4 rounds and groupings mave half a foot, but they're round holes

The issue here is that so many countries make the AK and have so many variants that not all of them are designed to have a pound of wet mud sloshed in the receiver. Better made receivers, and I forgot what country does this, are tighter. We've just never run across one. The decent Russian SKS in our group though is a far more accurate weapon with the same round, but it's obviously designed for different purposes. An AR-10 with sniper/heavy barrel (or AR-30 with Lapua .338) is my dream gun right now, but the first time I'd need parts for I'd be filing bankruptcy.

 

[LukeA]

even takes M-16 clips

Magazines. And so do lots of guns.

 

[Patriot]

Who cares what other guns shoot? A subsonic .22 shell makes a much bigger hole in 1/8" sheet metal than a 5.56×45. So does a 50cal. Does this conclude a 50cal and a .22 have similiar energy levels? Uh, no.

blasterman, your original statement practically condemned shooting enjoyment from anything but a 9mm carbine. No, a .22 long bullet (not shell) does not make a "much bigger" hole in sheet metal than a .223. And even if we pretended that it did, it was your argument that shooting .223 caliber was toy-ish. If that's boring, if that's toy-ish then what do you consider a subsonic .22 long rifle to be? Now I love .22 and shoot them often, but your path of logic is not making any sense. Also, if you're going to bring up .50BMG, why not bring up every rifle caliber over 9mm diameter regardless of how rare they are fired in a sporting sense. I think the OP made it clear that he wasn't searching for unique caliber hunting rifles. He's looking for something common that fires readily available ammunition, not a .460 Weatherby Magnum. I made the caveat "pretty much eliminated" as well, meaning there are obviously rifle rounds larger than 9mm but they're not commonly used.

Stop shooting cans and bottles. One of our favorite targets is bowling pins because they'll tolerate much more abuse being made out of hard maple and dense plastic. At 200meters you can hit a standing bowling pin dead center with a M-16 and often it just wobbles because the cross section of the round is so small compared to it's velocity. They round just leaves a burnt scorch on the plastic and a little hole, and keeps on going. The pin just wobbles.

The main reason I don't shoot at pins is because they became popular and somewhat expensive. When I wan't to shoot at wood, I can chainsaw 4" x 12" pieces by the dozen without having to procure anything special from anywhere special. I mentioned cans and bottles because they're very common targets among a great many shooters. Bowling pins aren't. I used to shoot at bowling pins as a competitive pistol sport but these days I shoot at more common targets including lots of steel plates at distance. Yes, a 9mm causes more target movement on certain types of media and less on others. None of this has anything to do with the described "toy-ishness" of the .223 round itself. If you hand a new shooter a M4 type carbine and then hand them a 9mm Beretta CX4, as I often have, there's zero question in there mind as to which one just burned 4X the amount of powder than the other. You can say that you prefer shooting a 9mm carbine, but I will never understand the logic behind calling the 9mm worthy and the .223 toy-ish because it shoots fast and flat with a lot of energy behind it.

A bowling pin hit with a 9mm at 200meters get knocked over, and more damage is done, but the round won't penetrate through the wood and plastic. If I switch to hunting rounds in my SKS or my buddies AK we shred it much faster than a 5.56×45. When we start lighting up with the FN-FALs and .308 things get messy fast and we run out of pins. Now, given it's the holidays, frozen turkeys are hoot with .308 and hollow points, but that's if you don't have to clean up the mess.

Please don't move on to other rifle calibers that you've already dismissed. Everything that you've mentioned in the paragraph above is smaller than 9mm in diameter. As we move on, you seem to simply have a problem with the .223 round itself and not any fast moving round. You say larger bullet holes are better but then you're talking about 200 yard targets where the perception of a .22 hole vs. a .30cal hole will be barely perceived.

Simply put, a good deal of the energy in 5.56×45 round is wasted because it's designed to tumble, break, and hopefully hit a vital organ. For under 100meters in a combat situation I'll take 9mm. For over 200meters .308. It's ironic because we have a lot of Vietnam vets in our little gun group, and they aren't fans of the M-16.

Whether a bullet's energy is "wasted" or not, is dependent on the target that the bullet strikes. If the target is a marshmellow, yes, the remaining over penetrated energy is wasted, as is the case with a 9mm. If you're talking about a steel plate, most of the .223's energy is used, as is the case with a 9mm. The .223 often doesn't fully penetrate in combat, thus it has been expended into poor person that it hits. The .223 has always been under scrutiny but so have many calibers including the 7.62x39. If you haven't been keeping up with current events, the 9mm that you so highly tout has been heavily criticized for it's lack of stopping power with FMJ rounds.

Which brings me to another gripe about the M-16, and that's the classic round/oval shot groupings of the thing due to improperly dampened 'mattel action' recoil. Only a few people gripe about this...guess it's due to flag waving or something.

In contrast to this is the rare my co-worker has, and even though the K2 fires the same 5.56×45 and even takes M-16 clips the difference in firing characteristics vs the M-16 is astounding. Rather than the vague, spongy recoil of the M-16 the K2 has a solid recoil with short but tight muzzle rise, and open sight shot groupings that are scary. Groupings with the K2 are tight horizontally with more variance vertically, which is on purpose given that's the kind of target you want to hit in fire-fight. Novices we've brough to the range who've never handled a fire-arm before make 2-3" shot grouping at 100meters on 62 grain Wolf. Then they try the M-16. Then they insist on the K2 because the M-16 'feels lame'.

It's evident now that you simply don't like the AR with its "mattel action" or the .223 round, unless it's from a Daewoo K2....lol. This has nothing to do with reality but only your prejudices. I owned a folding stock Daewoo, it was a nice rifle and had it's good points and bad points. There's nothing about it that makes it "great" while making the AR "bad." Your generalizations about accuracy are completely unfounded and if it was of superior accuracy as you state, they'd be using it at national matches instead of the AR-15 which has won every single major title that can be claimed and has displaced the highly respected M1A as rifle of choice for High Power shooting. You can't take one rifle and one type of ammunition, shoot it and then claim that all AR's have "round/oval shot groupings." Have I not just pointed out that the AR-15 is perhaps the most accurate semi-auto of all time? Neither can you determine that because one particular K2 fires horizontal groups that they all do. And to suggest that it was "designed" or intended to fire groups like this is absurd. Simply using a different ammunition can completely change the way a rifle shoots. To not have a basic understanding of this would be an oddity considering your claimed firearm knowledge.

If I'm shooting seriously with a AR/M-16 I prefer to take it all the way and use the longest barrel I can because it feels better balanced and groupings are tighter. Those shorty Bushmasters are the biggest pieces of junk you can own unless you actually like setting grass on fire. However, the K2 is flat out the deadliest and most precise open sight infantry rifle I've ever fired.

Amazing that you can suggest that a "shorty bushmaster is a complete piece of junk" but then if you add 4" inches of barrel length to it, it suddenly becomes worthy of your picking it up. Barrel length does not necessarily equate to bullet accuracy and even if it did, you already stated that the .223 has phaser like accuracy already, so why would you personally need more? Typically, the stiffer a barrel is, the more accurate it is. That means, a shorter barrel of the same diameter is actually more inherently accurate than a longer one. If barrel harmonics are tuned, then the longer barrel can be capable of the same accuracy but that's if it's tuned, i.e. a load has been chosen that's ideal, or you're using some form of harmonic adjustment device. The reason military snipers typically use longer barrels is for increased velocity which equates to a flatter trajectory and less wind drift. The more barrel length is increased the more it works against accuracy, not for it. Often longer barrels are also scaled up in diameter to reduce the problems related to increased barrel harmonics at the cost of weight, mobility and ergonomics.

I have a 9mm Highpoint carbine, and that's on a bad day. As for bullet speed, we have a velocity meter we take to the range now and then and the HighPoint always scores within about 100fps of the AKs. I've also never been bested by an AK shooter in terms of shot groupings with the 9mm either. So, I'm having a hard time concluding what's so inferiour about the 9mm given my cheap HighPoint seems just as accurate, cheaper, legal, similiar muzzle velocity, and doesn't sound like wet frying pans trying to mate when you fire it. Otherwise the AK is a great weapon, as long as the opposing army is also using AK's, or rocks.

You show me video of a series of 5 shot 3" groups with your $250 Highpoint "on a bad day" and I'll believe you. You're not going to convince me that a 3-4" group happens on "a bad day." If that were the case, you're claiming that you're easily shooting better than 3" groups with it. Good luck my friend! Since 9mm bullets are traveling so much slower than say a .223 and yes, even much slower than a 7.62x39 despite your claims below, small changes in velocity equate to big variations at a hundred yards. This is before you figure in the inaccuracies of the gun itself or the shooter. It's rare that any 9mm carbine shoots much better than 3" consistently at that range. I have owned a Colt 9mm carbine and regularly shoot a CX4. Sub 3" groups are not repeatedly realistic even with these well designed firearms and great optics, never mind a Highpoint with open sights. The "velocity meter" that you speak of is called a chronograph. The "score" that you speak of is the velocity in feet per second or fps. A 115gr 9mm bullet fired through a 16" barrel has a muzzle velocity of approximately 1600fps. A 123 grain 7.62x39 round fired from a 16" barrel has a muzzle velocity of approximately 2350fps. That's 650fps difference not 100fps difference as you claim. If your chronograph is saying that these two calibers are within 100fps of each other, I would highly recommend that you just shoot your chronograph next time out and then purchase a new one. Even if your chronograph were in error, there's so many places to understand the differences between cartridges including a basic reloading manual or even wiki for that matter.

All AKs we've owned and fired are notorious for leaving oval holes on target sheets more than any other gun (save for Bushmaster ARs with midget barrels). Even my clunky Chinese SKS doesn't do that. The barrel starts to warp after 3-4 rounds and groupings mave half a foot, but they're round holes

The issue here is that so many countries make the AK and have so many variants that not all of them are designed to have a pound of wet mud sloshed in the receiver. Better made receivers, and I forgot what country does this, are tighter. We've just never run across one. The decent Russian SKS in our group though is a far more accurate weapon with the same round, but it's obviously designed for different purposes.

I've fired several Romanian, Chinese, and Hungarian AK variants and currently own Romanian and Armory types of AK's and none of them print ovalized holes in target paper. This is another example of how I'm finding it hard to relate to your claims. The typical iron curtain AK or SKS has a more than sufficient 1 turn in 10" twist rate, which is actually more that what's needed for a .311 diameter 123 grain projectile. If you're routinely seeing ovalized holes in your target it's probably because rounds that were shot at much closer range have struck the ground and ended up passed through your target down range. This happens at the shooting range quite often. The only other explanation is that the example guns you've pointed to have completely "shot out" bores and/or the ammo is underbored by several thousands of an inch. Most AK's are capable of sub 5" groups with wolf ammo if the shooter does his part from the bench. My old wasr and new Armory, typically shoot about the same. Some can shoot 4" but with Wolf but that's typically the exception instead of the rule. The receiver of an AK does little to effect the accuracy whether it's "tight" or slack in tolerances. This has more effect with regards to reliability than accuracy. The AK's inaccuracy typically has more to due with non-tight bore dimensions, especially in surplus guns, a non-floating front end, very short sight radius, as well as a notched rear sight and fat front post vs. having a peep sight. Furthermore, the SKS isn't "far more accurate" in my experience...and why would it be? I recently sold a Russian SKS Navy variant and it was a solid gun. With that said, it didn't shoot noticeably better, never mind far more accurately, than the best AK's. I'm still shooting a Yugoslavian but the accuracy is much the same, typically around 4 inches.

Look, if you have an objection to the .223 and "Mattel" guns that's your prerogative but you're going to have a pretty difficult time logically justifying your notions. I don't care if your Vietnam friends don't like it either. Today's AR is a completely different rifle from the SP1. If you lent a couple of armorers the opportunity to pick apart, so to speak, both a Bushmaster AR15 and your Highpoint, I'm afraid you'd be strongly humbled by their comments. Yes, there are reasons why firearms are proportionately expensive, just like cars, watches and flashlights. I have no problem with your enjoyment of the Highpoint but come on, don't poo poo a much better built and proven weapon just because you grew up hating it for whatever reason. The AR has been serving our military, police and civilians very well for a long time now and most of them love the gun. I typically prefer .308 but I have the sense to recognize the overall package effectiveness of the M16 and all its derivatives. To be so negative against such a proven and popular platform is to ignore reality.

 

[vtunderground]

I had the itch for something a little different awhile back and picked up a CZ import Sa VZ58 Sporter. While it looks like and AK it's a very different animal and shares nothing with it other than the 7.62x39 round. After market support is growing for it and spare parts are easy to find www.czechpoint-usa.com is a good source.

Clone receivers are available some work good and some don't just stay with the true import D-Technic receiver and you will be happy, CZ-USA link http://cz-usa.com/products/view/vz-58-tactical-sporter/

This rifle is definitely worth a look and doing some research on

Thanks for the link to czechpoint-usa, I hadn't seen that website before. Now I'm craving a folding-stock vz58. Badly. Normally I sell guns to fund new gun purchases, but I just sold my last "non-sporting" long gun & bought a whitewater canoe... I think the vz58 will have to wait a year or two

Maybe the OP should buy a vz58, so that I might live vicariously through him???

 

[Sway]

Thanks for the link to czechpoint-usa, I hadn't seen that website before. Now I'm craving a folding-stock vz58. Badly. Normally I sell guns to fund new gun purchases, but I just sold my last "non-sporting" long gun & bought a whitewater canoe... I think the vz58 will have to wait a year or two

Maybe the OP should buy a vz58, so that I might live vicariously through him???

A folder for the VZ is another accessory on my long to buy list when funds are available. The fixed tactical sporter stock feels solid, shoulders well and gives me a better cheek weld with the irons over the AR but I guess that can be fixed with a little money and a Magpul UBR stock.

Eyeing the Cx4 Storm, Microtech STG-E4 and eagerly awaiting info on the Microtech MCS pistol caliber AUG……..

I'm starting to dislike this thread, it makes me want spend money, somebody should close it before I buy something ARRRGGG!!!!

 

[LightCannon]

I'm probably going to get bashed for this, but I've always liked the Steyr Elite, for some strange reason. Must be all the Counter-Strike I play.

Also, I'm surprised nobody mentioned handguns yet (I'm not counting the Kriss Super V. That thing's a monster.)

 

[Patriot]

Eyeing the Cx4 Storm, Microtech STG-E4 and eagerly awaiting info on the Microtech MCS pistol caliber AUG……..

Great firearms for the money. The little CX4 grows on you.

I don't own a the STG but they feel solid and shoot wonderfully. I'd like to own one eventually.

 

[cchurchi]

I recomend you get something class 3. Takes a little longer, but it's fun to own something more focused. Just depends if you want a suppressor, SBR, SBS, "any other weapon" - like a serbu super shorty 12 gage pistol, or machine gun - major $$$.

 

[Sway]

cchurchi sweet stuff man :rock: I have been looking into a can but I need to decide for which rifle, I added a 9mm Cx4 Storm to the mix today which isn't helping the decision but it did take one off my to acquire list

Where is Sgt. LED the original instigator of this thread, has he gone AWOL!

Later
Kelly

 

[Sgt. LED]

Oh no I'm just sitting back and looking at all the links given.

If I like what I see I read about 3 days worth of reviews and posts about it. After that it either stays on the list or is bumped off. Eventually I will move on to the test firing stage to see how they each handle.

Have to take the time so I get just the right one. THEN I have to shop for the best deals on the accessories.