They are for the [sarcasm]very intelligent individuals[/sarcasm] who still employ the term "####s where it eats".
Has anyone compared the Ar15 to the Cz858?
- Thread starter copeland
- Start date
They are for the [sarcasm]very intelligent individuals[/sarcasm] who still employ the term "####s where it eats".
Throttle_monkey1
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
So you're implying I'm stupid because I acknowledge the fact that the design of the AR fouls the action with carbon?
Well...only if you think it's a concern for reliability. The AR does throw a bit of carbon into the action, but it's a non-issue for reliability.
So I don't think it necessarily implies you're stupid if you point out that the design exhausts into the action. It does. That just happens not to matter.
Edit: Even believing that wouldn't necessarily indicate stupidity, of course...just ignorance of the AR-15.
So I don't think it necessarily implies you're stupid if you point out that the design exhausts into the action. It does. That just happens not to matter.
Edit: Even believing that wouldn't necessarily indicate stupidity, of course...just ignorance of the AR-15.
I've got both. I cracked the bolt in my Dlask 701 AR by the third time out.
Yes, I'm a moron.
But, the CZ is moron-proof.
So I lean towards that one.
• Non-res
• Cheap parts kits and replacements ($100 for the entire parts kit)
• I'm paying $200 for 500 rds of .223 versus $220 for 1200 rds of x39
• I can buy 2 CZ for the same price as an AR
Now, I'm keeping my AR because I can use penetrator rounds and I'm told the 5.56/223 has better ballistic characteristics - like I would know...
That's just me.
Yes, I'm a moron.
But, the CZ is moron-proof.
So I lean towards that one.
• Non-res
• Cheap parts kits and replacements ($100 for the entire parts kit)
• I'm paying $200 for 500 rds of .223 versus $220 for 1200 rds of x39
• I can buy 2 CZ for the same price as an AR
Now, I'm keeping my AR because I can use penetrator rounds and I'm told the 5.56/223 has better ballistic characteristics - like I would know...
That's just me.
What did you do to crack the bolt?
I'm also interested in hearing this...
Don't suppose you heard the term "poodle shooter" and tried to load an actual poodle into the chamber did you?
tactical870
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Buckhorn, Ontario
I'm partial to the CZ myself. More knock down power with 123gr sp's than virtually any 223 round, extreme reliability and the ability to hunt with it also helps. Accuracy wise I think the CZ will compete with any iron sighted AR as well.
I think the Vz58 was better for its original purpose until the AR's jaw dropping level of development and aftermarket really got behind it in fairly recent years. IMO, there's a reason that the AR didn't become widely popular until the last 15 years or so.
Anyway I would take a high quality AK over both if only they were non restricted and available for importation.
Anyway I would take a high quality AK over both if only they were non restricted and available for importation.
I'm also interested in hearing this...
Don't suppose you heard the term "poodle shooter" and tried to load an actual poodle into the chamber did you?
Yeah, I'm really struggling to think of a way that this could be user error rather than manufacturer defect.
"Knock down power" (let's consider this to be the equivalent of FPE, say) is a lot less important than terminal ballistics and it would be a lot harder to get high-performance bullets for the x39 than for a 5.56.
I definitely agree that the AR's development has been huge over the last ten years...using it in a shooting war has really taught weapons manufacturers and users a lot about how to get the most out of the gun.
Exactly. Please refer to an earlier post I made.
http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showpost.php?p=6291947&postcount=11
There are specific reasons why each platform has the support it has.
This whole 'my d!ick is bigger than you d!ck' contest is meaningless.
Throttle_monkey1
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
So you're saying that an AR can run as long as a vs without cleaning or lube? I might try it.
One thing that needs to be said is that the 858 model doesn't make the Vz58 look particularily good, just as the WASRs and other surplus parts builds available in the U.S. don't make the AK design look good, or how Olympic Arms and other budget AR manufacturer's don't do the AR any favors.
Well, I think it should be pretty easy for the OP to sum this up. The AR15 is miles ahead in development and the VZ58 (cz858) isn't.
The current AR15 models are designed for the 21st century and the VZ58 is still stuck in the 60s. Sure there's been some ergonomic and dress up detailling done for the VZ58 platform, but I think the major setback is the cartridge. 7.62x39 is currently more limited in capabilities than 5.56 has been shown to be. That said, if the Russians dumped as much money into 7.62x39 development as the Americans did into 5.56, the story might be different. However, they didn't, and went with 5.45.
The current AR15 models are designed for the 21st century and the VZ58 is still stuck in the 60s. Sure there's been some ergonomic and dress up detailling done for the VZ58 platform, but I think the major setback is the cartridge. 7.62x39 is currently more limited in capabilities than 5.56 has been shown to be. That said, if the Russians dumped as much money into 7.62x39 development as the Americans did into 5.56, the story might be different. However, they didn't, and went with 5.45.
I'm saying direct impingement is not an impediment to reliability.
I 've heard quite a few folks with downrange experience mention that, despite the appearant difference in ballistic gel, the 7.62x39 and 5.56 are basically equal in real world terminal effectiveness given an unobstructed shot, while the former is vastly better when it comes to barrier penetration and effectiveness beyond.
The new "barrier blind" 5.56 super bullets may change the equation somewhat but so may the new 7.62x39 rounds that the Russians have developed.
The new "barrier blind" 5.56 super bullets may change the equation somewhat but so may the new 7.62x39 rounds that the Russians have developed.
Where do you buy those?
Not sure, it'll all probably be unobtainium for a while in Canada. Even in the U.S it seems that little if any SOST or M855A1 has hit the civilian market yet, and commercial equivalents appear to be expensive and somewhat uncommon. The better Russian stuff may not even be importable at all down there.
Exactly...whereas you can easily get high-performance 5.56.
The milsurp x39 bullets are inconsistent performers in actual tissue. Some punch holes and don't yaw, some yaw fairly quickly. Some of the commercial x39 stuff is supposed to be decent, but you have to find it. Locally I haven't seen the 123 grain VMax, for instance, but that doesn't mean it's not available.
The heavier bullets are better on intermediate barriers, of course, but there is a substantial tradeoff in decreased range, increased cartridge weight, etc...same reasons the russians dropped the 7.62x39 in favour of the 5.45.
The milsurp x39 bullets are inconsistent performers in actual tissue. Some punch holes and don't yaw, some yaw fairly quickly. Some of the commercial x39 stuff is supposed to be decent, but you have to find it. Locally I haven't seen the 123 grain VMax, for instance, but that doesn't mean it's not available.
The heavier bullets are better on intermediate barriers, of course, but there is a substantial tradeoff in decreased range, increased cartridge weight, etc...same reasons the russians dropped the 7.62x39 in favour of the 5.45.
