Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 6/5/2008 7:09:27 PM EDT
Im gonna be putting together an AR in a larger caliber than the standard 5.56 for when the zombies come.

Im thinking an AR-10 with a Noveske upper in 7.62 or a Kotonics 6.8 SPC.

Is there any advantage ballistically between the two? Im leaning towards the AR-10 simply for the fact that the round has been around so long and is so readily available. For a SHTF gun, easy ammo scrounging is a concern. Of course if there was a big enough benefit to the 6.8 gun instead, I would feel safe stocking up on around 2000 rounds, storing them and just use my 5.56 guns for training.

Any opinions?
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 7:29:58 PM EDT
To start, I would personally use the guns I train with in a SHTF situation...just makes sense to me to use what I practice with.

Aside from that, I would deffinitely think that the 7.62 would offer better performance that the 6.8, and like you said, it is a much more common round and would be easier to find if you had to raid some gun stores for more ammo.  Those damn zombies won't kill themselves, there will be a lot of them, and you know you're gonna need more ammo =O)

If you could wait, I think LWRC is comming out with a 7.62 piston AR that is suppose to be bad ass...but I'm not sure when it's due out.

Link Posted: 6/5/2008 7:40:37 PM EDT
A bigger hole in the chest is better for deflating.  That being said, something along the lines of 45 to 50 cal makes larger holes.  

7.62!   More range, better bullet selection, ballistic coefficient, more energy, ammo available at local gas stations.  NATO 6.8............. I don't think so.
Link Posted: 6/6/2008 4:40:08 AM EDT
7.62 with 150 gr FMJBT will do the job every time or your money back.  The FMJBT is one of the highest wound lethality projectiles ever made as it tumbles upon impact.  Google International Wound Ballistic Assoc, there is alot of work done evaluating rounds for lethality civilian and military.
Link Posted: 6/6/2008 5:12:18 AM EDT
All along the same line I was thinking.

I wasnt aware that the terminal ballistics of the 7.62 were that much greater...all the more convincing to lean in that direction.

Im thinking this is the route to go.


Link Posted: 6/6/2008 5:30:49 AM EDT
if the majority of the worlds population suddenly "zombifies" Youre going to need about 1,000.000.000 rounds to take them out. When that time comes, I want you and anyone who can handle a gun to come to my house. this has been a dream of mine for YEARS!
Link Posted: 6/6/2008 5:32:12 AM EDT

Quoted:
A bigger hole in the chest is better for deflating.  That being said, something along the lines of 45 to 50 cal makes larger holes.  

7.62!   More range, better bullet selection, ballistic coefficient, more energy, ammo available at local gas stations.  NATO 6.8............. I don't think so.


I wanna live where you live.
Link Posted: 6/6/2008 6:17:57 AM EDT

Quoted:
A bigger hole in the chest is better for deflating.  That being said, something along the lines of 45 to 50 cal makes larger holes.  

7.62!   More range, better bullet selection, ballistic coefficient, more energy, ammo available at local gas stations.  NATO 6.8............. I don't think so.


Actually, i think he was talking about the 7.62x39, in which case GET 6.8, AWESOME ROUND!  If you mean .308, still get the 6.8, you can carry much more of it and it will do about the same job IMHO.  I may be young but i do own and shoot both.  And with that said, my SHTF is still my trusty .223, i personally do not think there is a better all around rifle caliber...flame suit ON!!

And in the great arfcom tradition....GET BOTH!!!
Top Top