/AKM/ - Guns, weapons and the art of war.

>>6451 hope you didn't already go ahead and buy that shitty .22
Why not save up a bit and buy something practical and useful like a decent AR with irons that you can potentially mount a scope or optic to?

>>6451

its like going to a gym and atarting off with 2.5kg dumbells

You want to start off with a harder round, like a 9mm, a .38, maybe 45. Pistols are generally harder to control than rifles, even with far less powerful rounds. So if you can keep a pistol on target than a rifle should be easier

How much money do you have? There's no reason not to start with a .22 if you have a good amount of funds. If you can only afford one gun buy a 9mm pistol or a 556 ar15.
>>6454
Honestly red dots have gotten so good and so cheap I don't even think irons are a necessity anymore (when it comes to rifles, I will always run irons on a pistol). You may as well learn how to use them but don't get too hung up on it.

>>6457
Optics are cool for stationary shooting but I feel like in most real engagements in a war situation you're likely not even going to bother shouldering a rifle to aim down the sights but instead just mag dump whatever you have from a raised but not aimed position.

This is mostly just from the Ukraine war i've noticed most people arent running sights, they tend to get broken quickly when you're needing to dive into a trench to avoid a FPV, and because of the effectiveness of things that arent guns most fights between guns seem to happen almost face to face.

Not to say dont bother even learning to aim, do that, just learn how to shoot and move and how to spray accurately/walk bullets to the target without shouldering is probably going to be more practical than shooting static.

Issue is I live in California I can get an AK in 556 but oh my god changing mags is a pain in the ass on these restricted weapons. I was thinking what if I get a non restricted gun with stupid magazine and pistol grip restrictions even if it's not as strong. I remember talking to a prepper and he said a 1911 .45 is too much for me to start out with which was my initial desire.

As >>6458 said:
>…you're likely not even going to bother shouldering a rifle to aim down the sights but instead just mag dump…
If I ran out of ammo a gun without stupid restrictions it will more likely save my ass than a gun I have to semi disassemble to reload.

>>6456
Also the reason why I was thinking .22 was that if I get good at shooting in a small cheap caliber, I can then go to more expensive/powerful calibers later on and that muscle memory will apply from the light stuff.
Similar to what you are saying, but with a 10kg weight. sure 2.5kg is not that great, but you can learn a lot of technique from the more 'reps' you do with it or rather shoot.

>>6457
I am trying to keep it less than $1000. but if I go for a rifle that won't be very possible and at that I Might squeeze in $500 more.

>>6459
why not a pistol-caliber carbine

>>6459
I don't know enough about ca laws to help you out with the rifle situation but .45 is not "too much", it was the standard carry for over 70 years in the us military, it's not that big a jump from 9mm. Even 10mm is not too much imo.

22lr is not a bad choice though don't get me wrong. It's cheap, can be made incredibly quiet, and will still kill someone.

I would probably buy a cheap .22 pistol to get started and once you're comfortable on that you can buy a second gun.

>>6461
I think it has the same restrictions where reloading takes forever

>>6462
Yeah for 9mm i was looking for a sig P365 or the newly exempt CZ p10-C

If i go .45 fuck it 1911A1 you can't go wrong. I just want the best bang for buck.

>>6461
They're really expensive like the Kali9 which is what i would go for it's a mini AK47 in 9mm but it's always sold out for good reason. Pic rel

Most gun related crimes happen with a .22lr take that as you will

can't go wrong with a 10/22. I have the takedown version, with a suppressor. very nice for plinking. you can even make them tacticool like picrel. but .22LR is incredibly ass at distances beyond 50 meters or so
depending on what you actually want to do you might want to get an AR-15 or even an AR-10. you could also look into hunting. where I live hunters are big on conservation, and they hate the forest companies, so that's an interesting political inroad
>>6463
what is up with that pistol grip? is it some stupid legal thing?

>>6463
>They're really expensive
I'm sure there are budget models. I assume that what you're paying with something like that is the adaptation of the ak gas system to the smaller round with lower pressures
something like the sub2000 is ~400$ according to the internet, and you make the money back the first time you buy ammo

the only good thing that has come out of prepper culture is "survival rifles" which are cheap, bolt-action and break-action pistol-caliber rifles, sometimes with internal tube magazines. so maybe look up something like that

>>6458
>Optics are cool for stationary shooting but I feel like in most real engagements in a war situation you're likely not even going to bother shouldering a rifle to aim down the sights but instead just mag dump whatever you have from a raised but not aimed position.
War situations mean being in a squad with a machine gunner and a DM. If you're on your own, being your own DM is definitely the best bet. No running and gunning and shooting at fuck all is not a good strategy by yourself or even with a small group.

>>6464
>Most gun related crimes happen with a .22lr take that as you will
Source: My ass.

>>6468
was the one with soviet .30 politically motivated? wtf

>>6467
Squads are getting smaller now and the Ukraine war tends to show a lot of troops completely isolated/cut off getting into firefights within 10-20m of one another in a trench, its fairly likely. Im not saying 'spray and pray', just that optics arent going to be much use at best and a hindrance at worst.

>>6470
???
gore videos from gopros are not a statistic
most encounters still happen >100m; drones make infiltration less likely because the other side is more likely to see you coming
also, I assume it's easier to shoot down a drone with a red point than with iron sights

>>6470
Dude, if you're fighting in a trench than you're are way past worrying about any of this shit. You should practice how to shoot down drones and how to take cover from artillery strikes. I really didn't go far enough in that other post. If you're thinking that you're going to fight not as part of a conscript in a national army like Ukraine, your main focus(at least with guns) should be shooting from a location you are never seen from. If you're seen you're fucked. Really sniping is the only viable tactic for guerillas and insurgents with firearms. Either that or train with a concealable weapon on how to get the drop on people and then getting away.

>>6471
>>6472

>most encounters still happen >100m; drones make infiltration less likely because the other side is more likely to see you coming

not really, its either urban building fighting, close range innawoods or trench sweeping- most of ukraine is flat open fields, trying to plink someone 100-200m away where? while standing in a open field? Most troops get driven in at high speeds and dive into trenches or cover and are constantly mobile to prevent them getting mogged by drones or arty.

Optics are cool and all but I think the most you'd want is a robust red dot or holo, actually using an optic with a magnfying scope on it will break easily or not find much practical use.

>Dude, if you're fighting in a trench than you're are way past worrying about any of this shit

It is the most practical application of your firearm outside of learning to react to someone trying to shoot you, or intervening in a 3rd party - in the first situation modern doctrine tends to teach mag dumping to the chest as fast as you can, in the 2nd you might have time to aim a bit better, either way an optic on what, a pistol? The only reason you'd need a bigger scope is for hunting (mostly stationary) or for the range (not practical)