Jump to content

Pros & cons of .223 cal. Saiga.


Recommended Posts

I posted similiar to this in the general section, but I think I might have more luck here. I'm new to the Saiga Forum & Saiga rifles. Fired a 7.62x39 Saiga yesterday & it shot great. I'm thinking of the .223 cal. for my SHTF rifle. I know it may not be the best defensive caliber, but it does allow for faster follow up shots. It would be easier on the 2 females in our home.

Is the .223 as reliable in this rifle as other rounds available? Does the Saiga handle most .223 & 5.56 ammo? Are spare mags available & at what price? I know I can buy on line, but I'll try a local gun show first. Any opinions would be appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I posted similiar to this in the general section, but I think I might have more luck here. I'm new to the Saiga Forum & Saiga rifles. Fired a 7.62x39 Saiga yesterday & it shot great. I'm thinking of the .223 cal. for my SHTF rifle. I know it may not be the best defensive caliber, but it does allow for faster follow up shots. It would be easier on the 2 females in our home.

Is the .223 as reliable in this rifle as other rounds available? Does the Saiga handle most .223 & 5.56 ammo? Are spare mags available & at what price? I know I can buy on line, but I'll try a local gun show first. Any opinions would be appreciated.

 

7.62 mags are much easier to come by but 223 mags can be had, and galil orlites are supposed to work well if you have one of Dinzags feed ramps. Rmember you need to conver the gun for 922r compliance to use high cap mags.

 

i like the 223 as a Bug Out gun because the ammo is lighter than 7.62, can carry more. on the side of the 7.62...bigger holes mean less follow up shots needed.....just aim good the first time!

Link to post
Share on other sites
I posted similiar to this in the general section, but I think I might have more luck here. I'm new to the Saiga Forum & Saiga rifles. Fired a 7.62x39 Saiga yesterday & it shot great. I'm thinking of the .223 cal. for my SHTF rifle. I know it may not be the best defensive caliber, but it does allow for faster follow up shots. It would be easier on the 2 females in our home.

Is the .223 as reliable in this rifle as other rounds available? Does the Saiga handle most .223 & 5.56 ammo? Are spare mags available & at what price? I know I can buy on line, but I'll try a local gun show first. Any opinions would be appreciated.

 

If you do a web search on Dr. Fackler's findings of the "termminal effects" of all major mil calibers, you will find that out to 200 yds, the 5.56 mm is hard to beat for terminal effect, and, as you noted, it makes for a much better tactical weapon in terms of follow-up shots, a double-taps. You can carry more of 5.56 mm as well. Also, the ammo availability is beyond quesion now, and will be into the forseable future.

Edited by inparidel
Link to post
Share on other sites

7.62 mags are much easier to come by but 223 mags can be had, and galil orlites are supposed to work well if you have one of Dinzags feed ramps. Rmember you need to conver the gun for 922r compliance to use high cap mags.

 

 

Just stopped in a gun shop that had a Saiga with a 30rd mag. I asked if it was legal & he said " it is legal if you don't have a folding stock."

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just stopped in a gun shop that had a Saiga with a 30rd mag. I asked if it was legal & he said " it is legal if you don't have a folding stock."

 

Try again.

 

Why not just cut out the middleman and read for yourself? Just do a search for 922r and you shall find what you seek.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just stopped in a gun shop that had a Saiga with a 30rd mag. I asked if it was legal & he said " it is legal if you don't have a folding stock."

 

Try again.

 

Why not just cut out the middleman and read for yourself? Just do a search for 922r and you shall find what you seek.

Just did the search. I didn't think the Hi Caps were legal, but others were saying I'm wrong. Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say that my x39 is not as accurate as my son's competition Saiga.223, which is almost finished finally. I had a Smith put the muzzle break on, all that is left is to hand fit the front hand guard, because we went with the ultimak M1b rail.

 

This gun is 922r compliant, Ace Folder, Tappco trigger group, hardware strore spring clamps, home made trigger guard, SAW pistol grip, AKM muzzle break, high rise scope mount with a decent Chi-Com hunting scope. and last a Hakko Aimpoint look alike.

 

I plan to buy him a tactical sling.

 

Getting back to the question I'd go .223 because you will be able to find it no matter what happens and as most of us know Wolf supplies can dry up. Galil mags work fine.

Edited by topmaul
Link to post
Share on other sites
OK this is the deal...

Like he said!

 

Now, FWIW, I'm going .223 for three reasons: (1) I've got a boat load of .223 that I bought on sale (mostly Malaysian); (2) I've got 3 different firearms chambered for .223; and (3) my wife is recoil shy (not all ladies are - but my wife is).

 

I'm a Lee-Enfield fan, so if I was going to make recommendations, I would suggest a nice Lee-Enfield (.303 British), and a 7.62x39 Saiga conversion. If you reload, you can use the same bullets (123 grain .311) in both, if you have to. IMO, the L-E is the finest bolt action combat rifle ever adopted by a major power, and the 7.62 AK is probably the best self-loading/assault rifle ever adopted by a major power. (They're both the same caliber, and the 7.62 case dimensions are almost identical to the front half of a .303 case - how's that for a 'coincidence?' ;>)

 

Flame away, if you want to!

 

;>)

Link to post
Share on other sites
well mister take 30 rounder metal of 7.62x39 and .223 same, take syn 30 rounders 7.62x39 and .223 same few ounces of diference ...

 

Although it's kind of a different question (and FWIW), I've read that the Soviet troops in Afghanistan (is that how you spell it?) liked steel mags, because they carried them in chest rigs, and therefore figured:

 

1) If they got hit, the metal mags might (big maybe) stop a round better than the synthetic mags; and

 

2) Metal fragments show up better on X-rays than pieces of plastic or bakelite, so they figured the docs could get any 'impact debris' out of their bodies easier, if they got hit when they carried the metal mags.

 

If what I've read is correct, they actually prefered the old 'slab-side' 7.62 mags, because the 'slab' mags were made of thicker steel than the ribbed mags. Frankly, I guess if a Bible can stop a bullet, so can a steel magazine (or maybe even a Twinkie, if God is on your side... ;>).

 

As for me personally, I've got a boat load of Orlites (what can I say - I'm a civilian ;>). I'll go with the plastic mags and a Bible, skip the steel mags, and hope for the best...

Edited by Bad Bob
Link to post
Share on other sites
Although it's kind of a different question (and FWIW), I've read that the Soviet troops in Afghanistan (is that how you spell it?) liked steel mags, because they carried them in chest rigs, and therefore figured:

 

1) If they got hit, the metal mags might (big maybe) stop a round better than the synthetic mags; and

 

2) Metal fragments show up better on X-rays than pieces of plastic or bakelite, so they figured the docs could get any 'impact debris' out of their bodies easier, if they got hit when they carried the metal mags.

 

If what I've read is correct, they actually prefered the old 'slab-side' 7.62 mags, because the 'slab' mags were made of thicker steel than the ribbed mags. Frankly, I guess if a Bible can stop a bullet, so can a steel magazine (or maybe even a Twinkie, if God is on your side... ;>).

 

As for me personally, I've got a boat load of Orlites (what can I say - I'm a civilian ;>). I'll go with the plastic mags and a Bible, skip the steel mags, and hope for the best...

 

Check these out:

 

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot9.htm

and

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot31.htm

 

St. Petersburg, FL here. :super:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn more Floridians coming out of the wood works.

 

Hey if any Floridian want to use shop press and plates feel free to drop a line

that mean you will have to spend a trip to FT Lauderdale on a weekend

no big deal.

Edited by vjor
Link to post
Share on other sites

No offense intended (if you doubt it, please look back at my post, where I said "big maybe," and "maybe even a Twinkie, if God is on your side"). But those 'experiments' rank right up there with the following:

 

'Hey, Jim, hold my beer! I'm gonna piss in this soda bottle, screw the lid on, stick it down that hole over there, and then shoot it with my .375 H&H. If a skunk comes running out, just shoot it with your 12 gauge - you've got one hand free, so it'll be easy! Here goes!'

 

Now, employing the standards used by the guys at the web site you linked, the 'experiment' I just described might 'prove:'

 

1) Skunks like 'trucker bombs;' and/or

2) Skunks are immune to fire from .375 magnums, and/or 12 gauge shotguns.

 

I mean, give me a break: rifle fire at 50 yards? And at 20 yards? Maybe 5 yards (max) for the handguns? What are these guys - miopic? Or do they think 5-50 yards is typical in combat? It all looked like fun (shooting targets that burst into flame sounds hot! ;>), but IMO, what they did had next to nothing to do with fact (either historical or theoretical).

 

But thanks for the links! I had heard about that kind of 'debunking' before, but never seen it...

 

;>)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Bad Bob,

 

Without corporate sponsorship, the "boxotruth" site is about as good as you're gonna get from lay man's testing. As for the ranges used, since most combat takes place at ranges well under 200 meters, a 50 yard test is just fine. While it isn't exact science, it's way beyond, "hold my beer and watch this."

 

If you feel that Old_Painless's tests are bogus or not done properly, please feel free to set up your own, photograph the results, and post them for all of us to review. I can assure you that O_P is about as down to earth, no BS as you'll ever find in a man.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey Bad Bob,

 

Without corporate sponsorship, the "boxotruth" site is about as good as you're gonna get from lay man's testing. As for the ranges used, since most combat takes place at ranges well under 200 meters, a 50 yard test is just fine. While it isn't exact science, it's way beyond, "hold my beer and watch this."

 

If you feel that Old_Painless's tests are bogus or not done properly, please feel free to set up your own, photograph the results, and post them for all of us to review. I can assure you that O_P is about as down to earth, no BS as you'll ever find in a man.

I apologize - I was 'over the top' with the 'hold my beer' comment. What they did, they did very well, and they also spent the time and effort to provide the results to the internet firearms community. That's always a major plus, and deserving of thanks.

 

But I have to ask - what was the gentleman trying to accomplish? In all honesty, if he was looking for meaningful results, 50 yards (& less) was a waste of time, and just about anybody could predict that. Heck - what kind of body armor does it take to stop a 7.62x39 round at that distance? That information is available, if you just look for it. Most police departments don't issue it, except (maybe) to their SWAT teams, and you can bet your last paycheck that it has more than two layers of sheet metal & 2-4 layers of cartridge brass in it. In other words, the gentleman's results were 100% predictable.

 

If he was just wanting to have fun, I could suggest improvements. Try extra-large cans of tomato sauce (I found some at a clearance store once, for about $1 each) as targets. Now, they won't catch fire, but they do explode (actually, vaporize) when you hit 'em with a 110 gr load from a .30-06. Maybe you could attach road flares, or something, to the can, if you really wanted the flames.

 

Bottom line: nothing in anything I've ever read suggested that Soviet troops expected steel AK mags to protect them at a range of 50 yards. Quite the opposite, in fact: the same accounts (IIRC, and as I mentioned above) suggest that the Soviet troops also wanted steel mags, because they would show up on X-ray, when they were blown to pieces and the fragments ended up inside their bodies...

Link to post
Share on other sites
I did some destructive testing on a bulgarian ak-74 mag. Took 15 HARD wacks on concrete to break it. A metal mag would have been junk after 2. I know an orlite wouldn't take that either. If I could just get the damn bulgy mags to feed.......

FWIW, and just to clarify things, I'm pretty close to 100% committed to Orlites (whatever their faults - invisible on X-rays, incapable of taking 15 HARD wacks, etc.) for my Sauga.

 

And on the plus side, they do fit a lot better in the Chinese chest rigs than the 30-rd 7.62 mags do (and the 12-rd Izzy steel Galil mags fit in a couple of those little side pockets, if you have a need for 'em)...

 

;>)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bad Bob,

 

In a realistic scenario, the body armor that consistantly stops both 7.62x39 and 5.56 is a ballistic plate insert. Kevlar alone won't.

 

As for Old_Painless's test, it was in response to the urban myth that a metal AK round could work as a sort of ballistic plate. O_P tested that myth and showed within reason that it was bunk. As for the range, in Iraq I bet a lot of combat ranges are 50 feet or less, especially in urban combat. Personally, with my own limited tests, I doubt you'd find much difference in penetration performance between 50 feet and 100 yards.

 

Don't read too much into O_P's tests, though. I'm sure he doesn't. He mostly does them because, "shooting things is fun." :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bad Bob,

 

In a realistic scenario, the body armor that consistantly stops both 7.62x39 and 5.56 is a ballistic plate insert. Kevlar alone won't.

 

As for Old_Painless's test, it was in response to the urban myth that a metal AK round could work as a sort of ballistic plate. O_P tested that myth and showed within reason that it was bunk. As for the range, in Iraq I bet a lot of combat ranges are 50 feet or less, especially in urban combat. Personally, with my own limited tests, I doubt you'd find much difference in penetration performance between 50 feet and 100 yards.

 

Don't read too much into O_P's tests, though. I'm sure he doesn't. He mostly does them because, "shooting things is fun." :D

I'm sorry if I applied too much 'heat' to the tests, or the person who conducted them, by way of any of my posts. I am (or used to be ;>) a scientist of sorts, and at times have tended to over-react to similar 'seat-of-the-pants' demonstrations (especially if I - for good reason, or not - thought someone was attempting to there-by establish the 'Gospel truth').

 

It sure sounds like the gentleman in question is a straight shooter, and I do apologize to him, if he's taken offense.

 

As I noted above, I don't really have anything personally invested in this, one way or another: I use Orlites, not steel mags, and find a Chicom chest rig very handy for carrying them...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anything as unscientific as the BOT is basically "Hold my beer and watch this". It's just a bunch of untrained people doing 'research' under uncontrolled conditions. The info from that sight is all but worthless.

 

You'll note they didn't put anything behind the magazine to show what damage the exiting rounds might do - they only speculated.

There were no recovered bullets to show what the impacts did to the bullets.

They did not chronograph the bullets before and after impact to show the difference.

You'll note they only shot at the magazines at a 90* angle, which is only a small percentage of hits in combat. Most hits are oblique.

They claimed rounds cooked off, but really showed no real evidence of it.

They did not test how well a round can penetrate armor after having hit a loaded magazine.

Etc. etc...nearly worthless.

 

It should be called "The Box Of Speculation".

 

WYK

 

Hey Bad Bob,

 

Without corporate sponsorship, the "boxotruth" site is about as good as you're gonna get from lay man's testing. As for the ranges used, since most combat takes place at ranges well under 200 meters, a 50 yard test is just fine. While it isn't exact science, it's way beyond, "hold my beer and watch this."

 

If you feel that Old_Painless's tests are bogus or not done properly, please feel free to set up your own, photograph the results, and post them for all of us to review. I can assure you that O_P is about as down to earth, no BS as you'll ever find in a man.

Edited by WYK
Link to post
Share on other sites
Anything as unscientific as the BOT is basically "Hold my beer and watch this". It's just a bunch of untrained people doing 'research' under uncontrolled conditions. The info from that sight is all but worthless.

 

You'll note they didn't put anything behind the magazine to show what damage the exiting rounds might do - they only speculated.

There were no recovered bullets to show what the impacts did to the bullets.

They did not chronograph the bullets before and after impact to show the difference.

You'll note they only shot at the magazines at a 90* angle, which is only a small percentage of hits in combat. Most hits are oblique.

They claimed rounds cooked off, but really showed no real evidence of it.

They did not test how well a round can penetrate armor after having hit a loaded magazine.

Etc. etc...nearly worthless.

 

It should be called "The Box Of Speculation".

 

WYK

 

Thanks for the input!

 

For anyone who might be interested in this kind of thing, there is a great forum (& info source) available:

 

The Terminal Effects Forum

http://www.tacticalforums.com/cgi-bin/tact...?ubb=forum;f=78

 

(In all honesty, I've never done a search to see if anyone there has addressed the issue under discussion. Like I said a few posts back, I don't have a dog in this race: I use Orlites in my Saiga, and aluminum mags in my FAL and ArmaLite... ;>)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Chatbox

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×
×
  • Create New...