GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-13-2010, 18:05   #1
rtl
Robby The Guy
 
rtl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Wichita
Posts: 1,572
Ak47 or Ak74? Which do you prefer?

I choose the 74. i love it's light weight, low recoil, and quickness. the 47 is too heavy by comparison and follow up shots are too slow. that's too much of a trade off for the advantages of the heavier caliber, IMO.
__________________
All the riches of the kings end up in wills
rtl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2010, 18:19   #2
Jon_R
Silver Membership
Senior Member
 
Jon_R's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 4,752
I just made that decision and went with one in 7.62x39 (47 Clone). I have not shot it yet its weight empty is very light maybe that will change when I get a chance to shoot it and put a loaded mag in it. Then again I also take my M1 Garand out for some shooting so weight is all relative. In the end I went with ak-47 since it is more traditional same reason my Garand is not shooting .308. I also already have an SKS so it would not add a new caliber to my collection.

It does mean I won't get a ak-74 soon. I like the idea / concept of the 74 rifle. You can always have more. A 74 with all polymer furniture to go with the 47 with traditional wood.
Jon_R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2010, 21:12   #3
mikeyU
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Montana
Posts: 1,389
I like my 74, polish tantal, but would like to get an arsenal 74 and try owning a 47 as well.
mikeyU is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2010, 22:51   #4
MisterPX
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I went 74 strickly due to ammo costs. For what I've shot, my first two 74's are free.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2010, 20:27   #5
PlasticGuy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 10,255
There's certainly nothing wrong with the 5.45 cartridge, and ammo savings are significant. I do prefer the extra power and penetration of the 7.62x39 though. It's worth a little extra money and a little extra recoil to me.
__________________
I'd be a better listener if you stopped talking about stupid crap that doesn't matter.
PlasticGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2010, 20:49   #6
andyffer
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 91
nobody thinks youre a psycho if you own an AK74
I chose the 47.

No I just chose it cause its more of a classic than the 74 and has more kick
__________________
Lancaster 3060 - 7.62x39
Kalashnikov Klub #0420
andyffer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2010, 21:13   #7
my762buzz
Senior Member
 
my762buzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by rtl View Post
I choose the 74. i love it's light weight, low recoil, and quickness. the 47 is too heavy by comparison and follow up shots are too slow. that's too much of a trade off for the advantages of the heavier caliber, IMO.
Neither. I choose the AK103 7.62x39 punches through steel thickness that 5.45 nor 5.56 can not pass through. I don't even feel the recoil pulse. 7.62x39 is also far more terminally effective against people or animals once you get past the FMJ BS that military conventions requires of governments. See shots 3 and 4 Try blowing water juggs at this magniture with 5.56 or 5.45
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzCnS...layer_embedded

Last edited by my762buzz; 02-14-2010 at 22:50..
my762buzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2010, 23:46   #8
toshbar
Timber Baron
 
toshbar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Eastern NC
Posts: 3,979
I bought a WASR first with wood furniture for the classic AK look, then Friday I did a 5.45 Saiga conversion, which basically is a 74 without a muzzle attachment. I kept the front plastic front hand guard, put a wire folder and modern scope on it. It is super cheap to shoot.

I put both of them on a scale, without magazines and the WASR was only 0.1 lb heavier than my Saiga conversion with a scope and mount. I guess i could take off a 3/4 of a pound for the scope and mount on the Saiga.
__________________
1 3 5
├┼┤
Save the Manuals!
2 4 R

toshbar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2010, 00:38   #9
9mm +p+
Senior Member
 
9mm +p+'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: KS
Posts: 2,429
I'm a .30 guy, I have no use for the SCHV rounds. I feel they are inferior stoppers, recoil from a 7.62x39 isn't an issue at least for me, mags are aplenty and ammo thankfully abounds gain. 5.45 is kind of an oddball for me, it may be effective but I'll stick with my 7.62.
__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum
9mm +p+ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2010, 00:45   #10
toshbar
Timber Baron
 
toshbar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Eastern NC
Posts: 3,979
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9mm +p+ View Post
I'm a .30 guy, I have no use for the SCHV rounds. I feel they are inferior stoppers, recoil from a 7.62x39 isn't an issue at least for me, mags are aplenty and ammo thankfully abounds gain. 5.45 is kind of an oddball for me, it may be effective but I'll stick with my 7.62.
the 7.62 may penetrate armor and concrete better, but the 5.45 will make a bigger hole in tissue. It tumbles after about 2 inches of hitting something soft like paper/wood/flesh whereas the 7.62 stays straight until 8 or 10 inches and by that time it's already gone through a body. Lots of the afghans were surviving 7.62 wounds cause the bullet came out just like it went in. a 5.45 coming out sideways is a different story and was nicknamed 'the poison bullet' for that reason.
__________________
1 3 5
├┼┤
Save the Manuals!
2 4 R

toshbar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2010, 03:13   #11
Asmodeus6
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 93
I only own 7.62 AK's so I have to say 47. But I would really like to move into a 5.45 AK soon. Mainly due to cost and the fact I don't have one.

I like the extra punching power of the traditional AK47 which is what drew me to them years ago. If I had to start from scratch 'today' I would probably buy a Bulgarian 5.45 AK.

In plum.
__________________
Kalashnikov Klub #4663
Asmodeus6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2010, 03:35   #12
my762buzz
Senior Member
 
my762buzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by toshbar View Post
the 7.62 may penetrate armor and concrete better, but the 5.45 will make a bigger hole in tissue. It tumbles after about 2 inches of hitting something soft like paper/wood/flesh whereas the 7.62 stays straight until 8 or 10 inches and by that time it's already gone through a body. Lots of the afghans were surviving 7.62 wounds cause the bullet came out just like it went in. a 5.45 coming out sideways is a different story and was nicknamed 'the poison bullet' for that reason.
That only holds with FMJ versus soft tissue. Hollow points/softpoints that fragment or violently expand change the that entirely. In the video link I posted above only the first jugg is hit with 7.62x39 FMJ and is virtually uneffected. The 3rd is hit with a 7.62x39 8m3 bullet that fragments very effectively and the 4th with a 7.62x39 vmax.
my762buzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2010, 03:43   #13
Asmodeus6
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by my762buzz View Post
That only holds with FMJ versus soft tissue. Hollow points/softpoints that fragment or violently expand change the that entirely. In the video link I posted above only the first jugg is hit with 7.62x39 FMJ and is virtually uneffected. The 3rd is hit with a 7.62x39 8m3 bullet that fragments very effectively and the 4th with a 7.62x39 vmax.
Exactly. 8m3 does insane damage to soft materials. Sometimes it will even fragment and the pieces will continue hauling through the target to go find some trouble of their own.

This is the beauty of using a round that is nearly 3x the weight of 5.45 or 5.56. Mass. Even the pieces usually come out large enough to wound or kill whatever is behind the first target.

I hang onto a little FMJ, but the majority of my stock pile is 8m3. It's not as good as the Vmax, but cost vs benefit it holds the highest ratio.



The largest draw of the 5.45 is that it can still be had for $.13c a round. 7.62 is nearly twice the cost or more. It's still fairly accurate, and effective. But I can shoot more of it if I was just 'starting' today, for less.
__________________
Kalashnikov Klub #4663
Asmodeus6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2010, 06:16   #14
JBJ16
Senior Member
 
JBJ16's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: YOUR BLINDSIDE
Posts: 744
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9mm +p+ View Post
I'm a .30 guy, I have no use for the SCHV rounds. I feel they are inferior stoppers, recoil from a 7.62x39 isn't an issue at least for me, mags are aplenty and ammo thankfully abounds gain. 5.45 is kind of an oddball for me, it may be effective but I'll stick with my 7.62.
Quote:
Originally Posted by toshbar View Post
the 7.62 may penetrate armor and concrete better, but the 5.45 will make a bigger hole in tissue. It tumbles after about 2 inches of hitting something soft like paper/wood/flesh whereas the 7.62 stays straight until 8 or 10 inches and by that time it's already gone through a body. Lots of the afghans were surviving 7.62 wounds cause the bullet came out just like it went in. a 5.45 coming out sideways is a different story and was nicknamed 'the poison bullet' for that reason.
Not to hijack the thread but this could be interesting reading. Link.
http://forums.second-amendment.org/i...hp?topic=636.0
__________________
"No problem on earth can't be solved by the judicious application of high explosives" - from Valkyrie
JBJ16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2010, 07:06   #15
Aceman
Senior Member
 
Aceman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa
Posts: 6,550
47 - it's just the ideal combat round. Perfect balance of power and size. More umph than the 5.45/5.56, less kaboom than the long range 7.62x51/54.
Aceman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2010, 13:54   #16
9mm +p+
Senior Member
 
9mm +p+'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: KS
Posts: 2,429
Quote:
Originally Posted by toshbar View Post
the 7.62 may penetrate armor and concrete better, but the 5.45 will make a bigger hole in tissue. It tumbles after about 2 inches of hitting something soft like paper/wood/flesh whereas the 7.62 stays straight until 8 or 10 inches and by that time it's already gone through a body. Lots of the afghans were surviving 7.62 wounds cause the bullet came out just like it went in. a 5.45 coming out sideways is a different story and was nicknamed 'the poison bullet' for that reason.
So you rely on a wounding mechanism that may/may not actually work when you need it? Tumbling/fragmentation may or may not happen, with the 7.62 at least I'm punching an almost 1/3" hole through my target. Sorry but SCHV is total joke to me, the 5.45 seems to work better than the 556. I've personally seen the 223/556 fail on stuff as small as groundhogs, so I'd have ZERO faith in it to protect myh loved ones. Just my opinion.
__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum
9mm +p+ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2010, 15:11   #17
toshbar
Timber Baron
 
toshbar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Eastern NC
Posts: 3,979
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9mm +p+ View Post
So you rely on a wounding mechanism that may/may not actually work when you need it? Tumbling/fragmentation may or may not happen, with the 7.62 at least I'm punching an almost 1/3" hole through my target. Sorry but SCHV is total joke to me, the 5.45 seems to work better than the 556. I've personally seen the 223/556 fail on stuff as small as groundhogs, so I'd have ZERO faith in it to protect myh loved ones. Just my opinion.
I've never had to rely on any gun to protect myself or my family but I'm sure the 5.45 would work. I've performed my own experiments testing the tumbling nature of the 5.45 and observed exactly what I've read. Within an inch of penetrating soft tissue, the 5.45 bullet has begun to yaw, and after 3 inches it has almost gone completely sideways. I did the same experiment with my WASR and it took almost 10" for the bullet to turn. You might be leaving a 1/3" hole in something, but a 5.45 going sideways is definitely going to do more damage. I have both calibers FTW, along with my Garand which will surely take down the most durable zombie.

The 7.62 and 5.45 are within 200 fps of each other although the 7.62 has about 500 ft*lbs more energy.
__________________
1 3 5
├┼┤
Save the Manuals!
2 4 R


Last edited by toshbar; 02-15-2010 at 15:22..
toshbar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2010, 16:35   #18
my762buzz
Senior Member
 
my762buzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,673
I'm just not as impressed as true expanding/fragmenting bullets.

5.45 versus water juggs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xKU1Iehlv8
my762buzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2010, 16:54   #19
toshbar
Timber Baron
 
toshbar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Eastern NC
Posts: 3,979
Quote:
Originally Posted by my762buzz View Post
I'm just not as impressed as true expanding/fragmenting bullets.

5.45 versus water juggs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xKU1Iehlv8
Those water jugs don't prove anything other than big splashes capture people's attn like shiny objects. there's nothing to look at and examine afterward.

Go get about a foot worth of paper and shoot both into it. the 7.62 will penetrate deeper, but the 5.45 will spin in the first few inches and start shredding sooner.
__________________
1 3 5
├┼┤
Save the Manuals!
2 4 R

toshbar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2010, 17:05   #20
mikeyU
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Montana
Posts: 1,389
both are good, just putting aimed bullets on a target faster with the 5.45 is what you prefer over a barrier buster like the 7.62 than get what you like.
mikeyU is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:56.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 567
167 Members
400 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31