Rifle caliber choice for defense

[drose40]

First off, I'm retired and my financial resources are limited, so I'm being verrrry cautious not to make bone-headed buying decisions in going about getting some changes made in my arms collection.

I'm early on in the process of re-configuring my tiny arsenal. The current political and social climate raise concerns about personal and family safety in the long run. I'm moving from a strictly sport-oriented collection to a combination of sport and defense/survival. I plan to convert a couple of items to cash and to buy 2 or 3 more special purpose items.

My only contact with current military armament is through reading here and on other Internet resources. Never knew that there was so much available and so much to learn just to make some kind of informed decision. 50 years ago I had an 03-A3. The NRA was selling them for $25 and a buddy and each bought one and had a lot of fun with them (wish I'd kept it). That's the sum total of my non-hunting firearm experience.

After a lot of reading, I think that the .223 rifle caliber is the best compromise for me when considering availability, cost and "stopping power".

Some of the larger calibers are certainly more powerful, but then the higher cost for ammunition drives up the cost of practice to become and stay proficient in the use of the firearm. For the same reason I chose 9mm for a pistol caliber. To be sure 45, 10mm, 357mag, 44mag, etc are more powerful but ammunition scarcity drives up the cost of practice.

Is this a reasonable direction? Am I missing something important in my choice? Thoughts? Suggestions?

[Lycanthrope]

I think you're right on the money.



Lycan.223AR15thrope

[frankie]

+1. I also agree on 223

[RoyJackson]

.223 is spot on.
When you decide on a rifle type (AR-15, Mini-14, etc), I suggest you get one with a NATO chamber, which will accept .223 as well as 5.56 cartridges.
If you go for an AR-15, any brand will work for your purposes (based upon your post, I don't think you'll be firing thousands of rounds per year). Unless you know the builder, I wouldn't buy a home built. Good deals can be had with home builts, but the quality and reliability/dependability can vary significantly. If you buy used, suggest you buy local so, if any problems with the rifle, you may have some recourse. Caveat Emptor applies, of course...

I went for a Rock River Entry Tactical. Nice rifle, and not overly expensive. I wasn't looking for the most accurate long range rifle, I was looking for something that can shoot mil-surp ammo reliably.

Good luck!

[Guns4Fun]

I think you're on the right track.

However, i'd also consider 7.62x39.

Since you are on a fixed / limited budget, shooting an AK in 7.62x39 is going to be a lot cheaper in the long run. An AK in 7.62x39 will only set you back $500. Plus, the wolf 7.62x39 is cheaper $250 / k than good brass cased .223 / 5.56.

A good quality AR (in .223 / 5.56) is going to set you back 1k and good brass cased ammo around $400 / k. I would not buy somthing like a mini 14 for shtf.

Plus, the less expensive sks is chambered in 7.62x39 too.

I guess it really comes down to how much money you have to spend on the host firearms chambered in .223 / 5.56.

[d90king]

I think you have a well thought out plan that will accomplish the goals you laid out. The .223 is a great self defense round especially some of the heavier stuff at a reasonable price point in today's market.

[d90king]

I think you're on the right track.

However, i'd also consider 7.62x39.

Since you are on a fixed / limited budget, shooting an AK in 7.62x39 is going to be a lot cheaper in the long run. An AK in 7.62x39 will only set you back $500. Plus, the wolf 7.62x39 is cheaper $250 / k than good brass cased .223 / 5.56.

A good quality AR is going to set you back 1k and good brass cased ammo around $400 / k. I would not buy somthing like a mini 14 for shtf.

Plus, the less expensive sks is chambered in 7.62x39 too.

I guess it really comes down to how much money you have to spend on the host firearms chambered in .223 / 5.56.

Also excellent thoughts... Both the rifle and the surplus are inexpensive by today's standards.

[RoyJackson]

I think you're on the right track.

However, i'd also consider 7.62x39.

Since you are on a fixed / limited budget, shooting an AK in 7.62x39 is going to be a lot cheaper in the long run. An AK in 7.62x39 will only set you back $500. Plus, the wolf 7.62x39 is cheaper $250 / k than good brass cased .223 / 5.56.

A good quality AR is going to set you back 1k and good brass cased ammo around $400 / k. I would not buy somthing like a mini 14 for shtf.

Plus, the less expensive sks is chambered in 7.62x39 too.

I guess it really comes down to how much money you have to spend on the host firearms chambered in .223 / 5.56.

I don't think drose40 will be buying rounds by the thousand...not on a limited budget.
Also, I'm not sure why the Mini-14 wouldn't be a good choice. In this case, we're concerned about home defense, not MOA accuracy. As long as the rifle cycles reliably (which I do not think is a problem with the Mini-14), it would be a suitable defense weapon.
Good thoughts about 7.62x39...and, if he went that direction, an SKS would also be a good choice. But drose40 did determine he wanted a rifle in .223 caliber.

[drose40]

I think you're on the right track.

However, i'd also consider 7.62x39.

Since you are on a fixed / limited budget, shooting an AK in 7.62x39 is going to be a lot cheaper in the long run. An AK in 7.62x39 will only set you back $500. Plus, the wolf 7.62x39 is cheaper $250 / k than good brass cased .223 / 5.56.

A good quality AR is going to set you back 1k and good brass cased ammo around $400 / k. I would not buy somthing like a mini 14 for shtf.

Plus, the less expensive sks is chambered in 7.62x39 too.

I guess it really comes down to how much money you have to spend on the host firearms chambered in .223 / 5.56.

Ah, hadn't thought of this angle. Thanks.

I considered that .223 would be more available and lower cost than anything else.

I agree, the price of ARs of any kind seem to start at $1k and sail off into the stratosphere. I'm not looking to trick out some kind of super "black gun". Just low tech, low cost, consistent with being dependable, reasonably 100 yd accurate and able to fit a scope or red-dot or some king of aiming assist. My eyesight does not improve with age.

Most firearms are capable of more accuracy than am I.

This is drifting into my next question, which rifle to buy?

If staying with the .223 and I may not. :-) I've decided to avoid the ARs. Too costly, more "techie" than I want to learn to deal with. The Aramalite AR-180b looks interesting. It uses AR-15 trigger components and magazines so those repair parts and supplies should be readily available at reasonable cost. It uses a simpler auto-feed system than the AR-15 and can be broken down without tools. Sad chapter in Ireland's history, but it was the arm of choice for the IRA in urban warfare and was dubbed the "Widow Maker."

Of course the middle east war(s) highlight the low-tech, dependable attributes of the AK and variants. They are too effective against our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Finally, I know absolutely nothing about the SKS, Chinese, maybe? Reasonable accurate?

[Guns4Fun]

This is such a hard question to answer.

My opinion is that if you are going to go .223 / 5.56 you need to do it in an AR platform. My favorite is a 16" M4 configuration. This will have a flat top upper that will make it easy to mount any optics you choose.

However, i'd seriously caution you against buying just any ol cheap AR. There is a tier level to them and I'd want to stay at the top of the tier when considering shtf use. Like i said, that would run you 1k - without any optics.

I've never been a mini 14 fan. A buddy of mine had one and it would jam all the time. I think this was due to poor mags. This was during the ban years so Ruger high cap mags were expensive and hard to come by - and the after market mags were hit and miss. Now that the ban is over and Ruger is making high cap mags again, maybe the results would be better.

An AK is also a really good platform. However, it gets a little more tricky to add optics. Not out of reach, just a little more difficult.

An SKS is the pre - AK. It is semi auto too and has a 10 round fixed box magazine. You load 10 rounds through the top via a stripper clip. They range in price from $200 - $350.

Also to note that no matter what you decide to go with, even with poor eyes, none of them really "need" magnified optics. My opinion is that in a shtf situation, you would not be engaging bad guys at distances greater than 50 yards - more than likely even closer. All these guns will handle that distance fine without optics - even with poor eye sight. If you need to shoot at further distance, one of your bolt "hunting" guns would fit the bill.

Also remember that even a lever action 30-30 can fit the bill. They hold 6 rounds and that should be enough to deter a bad guy or 2.

Sorry i wasn't more help in giving you an answer but i think these are some things for you to consider when making a choice.

EDIT - after thinking it over for a few minutes - i'm going to say that an AK using 7.62x39 is the way to go. Since you are on a fixed income the AK just makes sense. It is low cost and ammo is also lower cost. You could then buy an sks as a back up and even a mini14 chambered in 7.62x39. Mags for the AK run about $15 so they are only a few dollars more - and if you can't afford $250 for a case of ammo, you can buy half cases (500rnd) or even by the box. An AR is just going to cost you too much to start out with quality.

Here is a picture of an AK and an SKS (bottom). Notice the stripper clips for the SKS.

Ah, hadn't thought of this angle. Thanks.

I considered that .223 would be more available and lower cost than anything else.

I agree, the price of ARs of any kind seem to start at $1k and sail off into the stratosphere. I'm not looking to trick out some kind of super "black gun". Just low tech, low cost, consistent with being dependable, reasonably 100 yd accurate and able to fit a scope or red-dot or some king of aiming assist. My eyesight does not improve with age.

Most firearms are capable of more accuracy than am I.

This is drifting into my next question, which rifle to buy?

If staying with the .223 and I may not. :-) I've decided to avoid the ARs. Too costly, more "techie" than I want to learn to deal with. The Aramalite AR-180b looks interesting. It uses AR-15 trigger components and magazines so those repair parts and supplies should be readily available at reasonable cost. It uses a simpler auto-feed system than the AR-15 and can be broken down without tools. Sad chapter in Ireland's history, but it was the arm of choice for the IRA in urban warfare and was dubbed the "Widow Maker."

Of course the middle east war(s) highlight the low-tech, dependable attributes of the AK and variants. They are too effective against our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Finally, I know absolutely nothing about the SKS, Chinese, maybe? Reasonable accurate?