Has anyone compared the Ar15 to the Cz858?
- Thread starter copeland
- Start date
5.56 ball is pretty inconsistent in flesh too, at least the older stuff is. The Czech surplus is supposedly one of the better 7.62x39 ball rounds as far as early yaw goes, and it seems to be as good as any as far as barrier penetration goes, so little need for expensive "Gucci" ammo.
Anyway 5.45 has found to be lacking in some respects just as 5.56 has, improved ammo may minimize their weaknesses but at the end of the day, all assault rifle rounds have relatively short effective ranges in the real world, and the 7.62x39 at least has its barrier defeating advantage in its favor.
In the real world, the 5.56 is workable at 500m (and further for some), so while I agree that intermediate barrier penetration is in the favour of x39, there are other factors in the favour of other rounds.
Definitely a "pick your poison" problem.
Definitely a "pick your poison" problem.
Clobbersauras
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Waaay out west.
It should be noted that effectiveness of 5.56 is largely dependent on barrel length. 5.56 SBR's lose a lot of muzzle velocity and generally are considered not as effective at short to medium distances as their full length cousins.
7.62x39 SBR's do not lose nearly as much velocity (as a % compared to normal barrel lengths) and generally are considered as effective at short to medium distances as longer barreled 7.62x39.
That being said, both my VZ and AR are short, but I still prefer the AR.
7.62x39 SBR's do not lose nearly as much velocity (as a % compared to normal barrel lengths) and generally are considered as effective at short to medium distances as longer barreled 7.62x39.
That being said, both my VZ and AR are short, but I still prefer the AR.
Last edited:
There are few places and situations in the world where 500m assault rifle shots are going to present themselves more than rarely, and when they do such as in Afghanistan, a DMR or MG at the least will probably be needed anyway.
Most infantry engagements worldwide take place at less than 100m, and assault rifle fire of any kind is said to drop off sharply in effectiveness (people are very good at making themselves "small" and not so good at shooting accurately when shot at) after that 100m, so it that's the case then it would make sense to optimize your rifle system for that task.
The rifle has nothing to do with it, but training, on the other hand...
I'll take the AR platform over the AK platform any day.
Twice as much ammo, less recoil, better placed follow up shots.
A well placed shot with a 5.56 is very effective.
I've put 1K+ rounds through my DI's (in several different environments and temperatures) without cleaning or lubing, and have had zero failures
Twice as much ammo, less recoil, better placed follow up shots.
A well placed shot with a 5.56 is very effective.
I've put 1K+ rounds through my DI's (in several different environments and temperatures) without cleaning or lubing, and have had zero failures
Gunnerlove
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Vancouver Island
According to the American, Brit, Ausie and NZ armies more than 50% of SA engagements are at ranges greater than 500m.
That is why they are all pushing DMRs.
This is Canada...there are few situations you are ever going to resolve with an AR or VZ at any distance.
I leave worrying about infantry engagements to the infantry.
WEll although I havent compared the two, I did spend a significant amount of time looking at apples in my kitchen......then comparing them to oranges......
ARs are a finite tool for warfighters and LEO's. AK and family are a good reliable gun though, and shouldnt be underestimated. It all comes down to personal prefference, I personally preffer the AR platform. If it comes down to a requirement for ruggedness and relaibility on a civ range, then you are treating your gun wrong if the AR does not meet your needs. From a price and non restricted / restricted point of view, then I'd agree that the VZ would fill more niches for your dollar, as it can be used in a lot more activities.
ARs are a finite tool for warfighters and LEO's. AK and family are a good reliable gun though, and shouldnt be underestimated. It all comes down to personal prefference, I personally preffer the AR platform. If it comes down to a requirement for ruggedness and relaibility on a civ range, then you are treating your gun wrong if the AR does not meet your needs. From a price and non restricted / restricted point of view, then I'd agree that the VZ would fill more niches for your dollar, as it can be used in a lot more activities.
Same, thats all the reliability I need right there. Stoppages? Add lube...problem solved.
Gunnerlove
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Vancouver Island
Our allies seem to feel that in an insurgency killing the enemy without tearing the hell out of everything around said enemy is the best option.
300Spartans
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Canada of course
You could imagine, if they were not classified as restricted, the enormous amount of Canadian firearms owners who would have one, two, maybe even more ARs. Our neighbours south of the border are infatuated with them, and a giant industry is making millions on production of the rifles, parts and accessories.
Personally, I think it would be awesome to go on a coyote hunt with a Remington R-15.
This is the only reason why the CZ is even discussed alongside the same breath as the AR!
I don't own a CZ. But I do own a SKS, probably because of the same reasons why some own CZ's:
CHEAP AMMUNITION
NON-RESTRICTED STATUS
However, that being said, threads like this seem to pop up now and then on CGN (since I've been here and I've not been here that long) to strike up a debate. It's utterly meaningless.
