Discussion in 'The Counter' started by pbnationrc, Sep 12, 2020.

  1. pbnationrc

    pbnationrc Member

    Dec 19, 2009
    Its only about 32 cents a round. While 5.56 is going for well over 80 cents per round. Even 9mm is well over 65 cents per round. Why is no one buying 7.62x39? Is it because AK prices have been up for a long time now and everyone loves the AR15? Why no love for the AK anymore?

    EDIT: Even 5.45x39 is about 30 cents a round....
  2. darkwriter77

    darkwriter77 Well-Known Member

    Mar 11, 2011
    Apache Junction, AZ
    Not only is it cheaper per round on average, it's also plentiful, whereas 5.56/.223 are pretty well sold out everywhere. I think most of it is the HUGE influx of first-time buyers and the fact that the AR platform, which is most commonly chambered in 5.56/.223, is also the best-selling rifle format in the country. For the past few months, people have been buying up all things home defense and concealed carry related as of late for three reasons: 1. the 'Rona panic buying frenzy; 2. the riots/civil unrest buying frenzy; and 3. the usual election year buying frenzy. The third item is predictable; the first and second are because of ill-prepared folk who are JUST NOW realizing the importance of the Second Amendment and how it ACTUALLY applies to modern-day reality (HINT: it ain't about hunting, muskets, or the National Guard.) Either way, it's a HUGE influx of new gun owners that the ammo industry wasn't prepared to supply.

    The reason I figure 7.62x39 in particular isn't getting bought up is because the focus is less upon "assault weapons" in general like it was post-Sandy Hook and during those related election years. Rather, the focus is more upon, again, home defense and concealed carry. AR's these days are getting regarded with the same reverence as pump shotguns (which are also darn near impossible to find lately) when it comes to guarding the homestead. I figure folks are favoring them over AK's for a number of reasons: 1. 5.56/.223 tumbles/fragments more readily than other calibers (like heavier rifle bullet weights like 7.62x39, or pistol calibers), making it more urban environment friendly; 2. LE and gov't agencies use AR's, not AK's, so there's that recognition factor, plus all of the tacti-cool accessories galore, 3. AR's controls are slightly more ergonomic than AK's and, when chambered in 5.56/.223, recoil less than an AK, making them more appealing to newbie shooters, 4. at least up until recently, AR's were VERY affordable at around $499 for a basic Ruger, S&W, or whatever else, whereas AK's were at least a couple hundred more on average; 5. at least here in AZ, because it's been so absurdly dry this year (I know, we live in a desert, but our monsoon season was a total bust and it has been STUPID dry), outdoor ranges haven't been allowing steel-core or steel-jacketed ammo, indoor ranges pretty much prohibit steel-cased ammo in general, and there's WAY more options for non-magnetic freedom seeds in 5.56/.223 than 7.62x39, soooooo ... there's also that. At least here. Dunno about elsewhere. :confused:

  3. jonnin

    jonnin Well-Known Member

    Sep 28, 2010
    The AR went 'viral' when it became legal again after the ban. For whatever reasons, the AK did not get that surge, and so there are probably 20 ARs to every AK in the country now.
  4. pbnationrc

    pbnationrc Member

    Dec 19, 2009
    Thats what I figured too. I'll keep my mouth shut and enjoy shooting cheap ammo and laughing at the same time!
    mtn_chef likes this.
  5. fez

    fez Well-Known Member

    Jun 24, 2009
    I like my ar but I love my Mak90 underfolder. Have mucho ammo for it.
  6. mtn_chef

    mtn_chef Well-Known Member

    Mar 22, 2014
    nc mountains
    I love ak’s had several now.
    almost always goes bang...
    cheap to feed
    more accurate than people know
    had things fall off of them and they still worked, surprisingly so....

    never had an issue with one of my ak’s that wasn’t my fault...(should have loctited that when putting back together, crap-ugly ammo I should have known better than to try...)

    so what if they’re heavy. do some pushups.
  7. alnico357

    alnico357 Well-Known Member

    Mar 5, 2011
    NC ARkansas
    I have a bull pup AK and a supply of the 8M3 round. I do not own an AR.
  8. haertig

    haertig Well-Known Member

    Jun 14, 2008
    Given an AK and an AR sitting side-by-side, if forced to run into an urban battle (e.g., targets at 100 yards and closer), I would grab the AK every time. Mostly because in the field you can repair one using just a rock and a stick. And maybe some duct tape. With an AR you're more in need of an armorer for maintenance/repair, sitting back behind the front lines. Nothing wrong with an AR. But they are not "low maintenance". The AK is. Actually, it's closer to "NO maintenance", which is good in a battle situation.
  9. jonnin

    jonnin Well-Known Member

    Sep 28, 2010
    A vet I knew said the first thing he was told to do in vietnam was to capture an enemy ak and ammo for it. At that time the AR was rubbish, though. A lot of range toy ars are junk (or if not junk, too tight to run after abuse). I do not know how durable and field usable the mil ones are.
  10. darkwriter77

    darkwriter77 Well-Known Member

    Mar 11, 2011
    Apache Junction, AZ
    I know this is an issue of semantics, but technically the military didn't use the AR in Vietnam. They used the M16. :) (I only mention this because even though the AR15 and M16/M4 both LOOK identical cosmetically, there's enough significant differences between 'em that it's like saying a base-model Dodge Challenger with a V6 is the same as a Dodge Hellcat. It's also what fuels the uneducated anti-gun folks' arguments that AR's are "assault weapons" because they think they function the same as an M16/M4.)

    It's funny how the AK still has this enduring reputation as a rifle with the unfailing reliability of a claw hammer or a rock, but that largely depends upon who made the AK. Especially nowadays, where American companies have been struggling to put out an AK variant that doesn't suck. Century Arms has been VERY hit-or-miss with making their own (with more misses than hits), and others like I.O. and Pioneer and such just make absolute garbage AK's. Crappy rivets, barrels not pressed right into trunions, misaligned sights, bolts that beat themselves apart in under 1,000 rounds, trunions cracking, etc. ... not exactly reliable. Of course, there ARE good ones out there by (duh) Kalashnikov or Ordinance, but they're NOT cheap. (FWIW, my Zastava AK's have always been good and they have a pretty good reputation for not sucking.)

    And anyway, I think a lot of the AK reputation is just a carryover from the Vietnam years and later, up until AR's have become so prevalent in the past 20 years when manufacturers got their stuff together and worked out most of the kinks in the AR platform. Way back when, yes, AR's weren't as reliable as AK's. Nowadays? I'd say it's pretty much a wash. There are good and bad manufacturers of each, and with varying results as such.

    Maintenance-wise, I dunno how it's figured the AK can be "fixed with a rock and a stick." The AR platform is modular and just plugs together like LEGO's, whereas the AK is old-school tech with a lot of hand-fitting. On an AK, you can change out springs, grips, furniture, the bolt carrier group, or even the entire upper receiver with pretty simple tools as needed. If an AK craps the bed, however, it's a LOT more involved to press out rivets and press in new ones, press barrels in/out of trunions, swapping bolts involves a lot of fitting and checking headspacing, etc. It's sorta like the difference between clearing a jam in a semi-auto pistol and a jammed revolver; the former can often be fixed with a tap and a rack, whereas the latter often is going to require tools. Which would I grab in the event of zombies or whatever? Whichever's readily available, honestly, as long as I have and/or can get enough ammo for it (and I know the rifle isn't going to fall apart on me).

    Which brings us back from a lengthy derailment back to the OP's question. Again, I think the 5.56/.223 shortage versus the 7.62x39 availability is largely because the AR is more popular nowadays, particularly with all of the new first-time gun owners. And anyway, the 5.56/.223 lends itself to home defense a bit better as a caliber (in urban environments) because of its lightweight bullet that loses velocity pretty easily upon impact, whereas the 7.62x39 is balistically similar to .30-30 and will punch through a lot more before stopping. Given the way all defensive-style shotguns and all 12-gauge buckshot/slugs are VERY much in demand right now, as well as defensive pistols/revolvers, it falls in line with the fact that folks are buying up stuff with defensive purposes in mind rather than purely being concerned with what the anti-gun folks are labeling as "assault weapons."

    Unlike the last time we had a big gun-buying panic run, there are a LOT of scary black rifles on the walls at gun shops, but they're usually in other calibers like .308/7.62 NATO, 6.5 Grendel (or Creedmor, or whatever 6.5, because I honestly know diddly-squat about those), .22 LR, and so on. People are worried that society's falling apart and mobs are going to be surrounding their vehicles in the streets or bursting into their homes through their doors/windows. And given some of the real-life examples of just that sorta thing happening as of late ... well, can ya' blame 'em?
    Electroshot likes this.