What "Battle" Rifle


PDA






MrDig
December 30, 2006, 01:49 AM
Which Battle Rifle is the best Valu for a person on a budget
AK
SKS
AR 15
AR 10
FAL
Other
I ask because any thing but the SKS will be purchased in segments and need building.

If you enjoyed reading about "What "Battle" Rifle" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Son of Sam
December 30, 2006, 01:56 AM
Not my favorite of the rifles you named but how's this for a budget battle-rifle?

http://www.centerfiresystems.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=1064

I prefer one of the AKM varieties, myself, and once you're set up tooling-wise you can bent flats and put them together all day long for $200-400 each, legally, depending on the model.

RNB65
December 30, 2006, 01:59 AM
Mosin-Nagant

General Geoff
December 30, 2006, 02:17 AM
Can't beat the AKM for a battle rifle on a budget.

If bolt guns are in the running, then I concur with RNB65. Mosin Nagant ftw.

mkh100
December 30, 2006, 02:30 AM
Voted FAl because its the only "battle" rifle on your list.

The others are "assault" weapons :neener:

seriously, SKS or an AK to tie you over till you can get a full cartridge. FAL or maybe Cetme or PTR 91. Your AR10 is probably too expensive IMO.

Not to say you are not well armed with any of them, if your just in love with the AR its at least considerably more acurate on average than most AK's.

RockyMtnTactical
December 30, 2006, 02:33 AM
Most of those guns aren't technically "battle rifles", but of the weapons listed I chose ar15.

U.S.SFC_RET
December 30, 2006, 02:38 AM
M1 Nothing speaks with authority like an M1 Garand.

fugi
December 30, 2006, 02:51 AM
if you're going "battle rifle" then the FAL is the only appropriate one on the list, however the short-stroke gas system is unreliable in dirty or sandy conditions, I'd be more inclined to go CETME or the sorts.

but if you're good with an intermediate round, I'd go AK, you really can't beat the long-stroke gas piston unless it's a lever-delay you're going after like in the FAMAS or Koborov 517, but the former is horribly french, and the latter isn't made.

you can always make tradeoffs and get an AR/AK hybrid, the daewoo dr200. it has a long-stroke gas piston and bolt with more than two lugs on it. the only downside is parts aren't easily availible, so in a survivalist scenario it's a bad option, but good in every other.

I'd go for the FAL. if you look you can get an enterprise arms or century receiver build with an L1A1 or STG58 kit for $400.

toemag
December 30, 2006, 02:58 AM
I had to go with the AR.

There aint such thing as a battle rifle on a budget, if the SHTF aint going to happen in the next couple of month's save for a decent weapon. I made that very same mistake when I bought a mini14:fire: :fire: :cuss: .

Toe

Mtdew
December 30, 2006, 03:06 AM
well it just depends on what you really want

my answer just get them all...over time

also remember 308 is really expensive right now

Hoppy590
December 30, 2006, 03:17 AM
only 1 of those is a "battle rifle" and even that one is an underpowered rifle that only served in a major army for a short time. and thats the SKS. the next closes is the FAL.

.45&TKD
December 30, 2006, 03:44 AM
FAL..... the short-stroke gas system is unreliable in dirty or sandy conditions

Is this true? I've been wanting to get an FAL, but I live in the desert.

Socrates
December 30, 2006, 03:45 AM
M14/M1A
FN/FAL
didn't Galili make a AK 47 variant in .308?

S

RockyMtnTactical
December 30, 2006, 04:32 AM
only 1 of those is a "battle rifle" and even that one is an underpowered rifle that only served in a major army for a short time. and thats the SKS. the next closes is the FAL.


Why is the SKS a battle rifle and the FAL isn't?

One of the major distinctions of a BR is that it is in one of the more powerful cartridges used in a infantry rifle. Considering the FAL is (generally) chambered in 7.62x51 and the SKS is chambered in an intermediate cartridge (the same intermediate cartridge as the AK-47), I am curious to hear your definition of a BR.

RockyMtnTactical
December 30, 2006, 04:34 AM
Is this true? I've been wanting to get an FAL, but I live in the desert.

I never noticed that with my FAL's, but then again, I keep having people tell me the AR-15 isn't very reliable either and I can't say that I've experienced that either.

FWIW, I have lived in the SW most of my life and I've never had issues while out on hunting excursions...

Hoppy590
December 30, 2006, 04:36 AM
Quote:
FAL..... the short-stroke gas system is unreliable in dirty or sandy conditions

Is this true? I've been wanting to get an FAL, but I live in the desert.

the isreali 6 day war exposed some weaknesses to fine desert sand that contriubuted to the isrealis changing from a FAL system to a more AK ( though still a little differant) platform, the galil. if you live in say, AZ, i wouldnt be too conserned about the FAL having a problem. dont forget its a military rifle. unless you plan to march across enemy territory and expand your land by a few 100%'s in 6 day's. i doubt theres much you can do to the FAL compareed to what it saw in the 6 day war.

didn't Galili make a AK 47 variant in .308?

yes, a sniper rifle. called the Galatz rifle. an isreali rifle

Hoppy590
December 30, 2006, 04:50 AM
Why is the SKS a battle rifle and the FAL isn't?

One of the major distinctions of a BR is that it is in one of the more powerful cartridges used in a infantry rifle. Considering the FAL is (generally) chambered in 7.62x51 and the SKS is chambered in an intermediate cartridge (the same intermediate cartridge as the AK-47), I am curious to hear your definition of a BR.

battle rifle to me is a full sized,full strength, straight or C stocked rifle, designed to be fired in a "aimed fire " maner. it must accept a bayonet, a decent one at that, and expect to use it. designed to not only shoot a man, but bludgeon a man to death aswell. pistol grips need not apply. i honestly hardly consider the SKS a "battle rifle" its kind of the redheaded step child between "battle" and "assault" rifles. but out of the ones listed its the closests due to the stock and the manner in wich it is intended to be used

the last TRUE " battle rifle" as far as i know is really the M1 garand. i WOULD say the M14, but that doesnt fufill the "aimed fire" requirement

sorry. but the great "Battle Rifles" are as followed ( in no order)
M1 garand
SMLE
Mauser (including K98 and US M1903)
Mosin Nagant (91/30)
K31
Styer M95

fugi
December 30, 2006, 05:16 AM
oh yea there's always the saiga 308, that'd be excellent if you got higher capacity magazines.

WarMachine
December 30, 2006, 06:11 AM
Hoppy590

I'm not seeing how the M1 Garand would be considered a "battle rifle" but it's newer relative the M14 or even a FAL wouldn't. I don't know about the "aimed fire" requirement, but I have always taken a battle rifle as a full-size rifle that fires a full-power (as opposed to an intermediate) cartridge like the 7.62x51/54R, 30-06, 8mm, .303, etc. Why would the lack of a bayonet and a pistol grip, as on the FAL and on some of the M14's being fielded in Iraq, disqualify them? Both of them are more than capable of aimed fire as well.

Don't Tread On Me
December 30, 2006, 07:39 AM
If you're handy enough to operate a drill, tap a hole, and grind 1/32" of metal with a dremel......

Get a Saiga in 7.62x39mm for about $230.

Conversion parts run about $130.

When you are done, you can have an Arsenal (I think better) grade AK for just a touch under $500.

Saiga is made by Izhmash where Mr. Kalashnikov himself works, and where all the AK-100 series are made. The barrels, bolts and receivers are all absolutely top-shelf AK stuff.

Conversion will get you a G2 trigger which is better than a 2-stage aftermarket AR trigger, and a SAW grip which is a huge improvement over the regular AK grip. You will also be able to use AK magazines which are cheap, robust and reliable.

If you spend $40 more than the $130 I said above, you can get an AR-style M4 collapsing stock for your AK instead of the standard plastic buttstock. There are folders, but they cost even more.

This option requires some effort, research (saiga12.com) and handiness. If you can do that, you're getting a LOT of quality for a very low cost.

1 old 0311
December 30, 2006, 08:23 AM
AK. Can't beat price, or reliability.

El Tejon
December 30, 2006, 09:22 AM
If money is an issue, then get a CKC and a bunch of ammo.

Later you can get a M14 or FAL or whatever you like.

usmcdoc14
December 30, 2006, 09:46 AM
FAL..... the short-stroke gas system is unreliable in dirty or sandy conditions

this gun would like to disagree with your "dirty fals are unreliable" statement :p http://www.falfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=68486


Is this true? I've been wanting to get an FAL, but I live in the desert.
any weapon with a tight(er) fitting function when kept "wet" in a desert environment will have problems (hence why AK's work well). This can even be a problem with AR's as shown by our troops right now.
A lot of my friends in the sandbox are using http://www.militec-1.com/ as this solves that problem by allowing you to have a "dry" well lubed weapon.
Sand sticks to CLP like its cool.


as for the original question: on a budget? AK is your answer. (even if its not a "battle rifle" )
and I own most of the weapons on your list.

Grunt
December 30, 2006, 10:16 AM
Of those rifles you listed, only the AR-10 and FAL can be considered true battle rifles so to be honest, I didn't even consider the other options you listed. The FAL is generally cheaper both in the cost of the weapon and of spare magazines which is an attractive feature. Also, while the AR-10 is a very accurate platform (more so than the FAL) it also has the reputation for being more finicky on what kind of ammunition you can use and how clean it has to be kept. No, for a true battle rifle, the FAL is the better pick IMHO.

MechAg94
December 30, 2006, 10:47 AM
New Term: Battle Rifle Snobs. :D maybe not new.

Honestly, the SKS is the best value on the list for someone on a budget. Good condition rifles are still available for $150 (http://www.aimsurplus.com/acatalog/Yugoslavian_Model_59_66_7_62x39_SKS_Rifle.html) and a case of ammo is about the same price. For the price of an AK or a 1/4 the price of an FAL or M1A, you can get rifle and lots of ammo. For another $100, you can get stripper clips, accessories, and upgraded sights (www.tech-sights.com).


There are better rifles on the list, but get an SKS first, then work on other rifles if you need to.

dfaugh
December 30, 2006, 11:12 AM
As mentioned, many on the list aren't truly considered "battle rifles". But, i also think people are splitting hairs here, too. If the intent (as I read it) is a reliable, reasonably powerful rifle, you gotta go SKS...Cheap. reliable and durable. How can you beat a $150, that shoots (relatively) cheap ammo, to minute-of-bad-guy out to 300-400 yards?

The only one I wouldn't have would be an AR-15, based on cost/benefit.

Dr. Dickie
December 30, 2006, 11:22 AM
There is but one "Battle rifle," that is the M1:evil:
The rest are fun plinkers.
For a budget, Mosin or SKS

Father Knows Best
December 30, 2006, 11:45 AM
If the intent (as I read it) is a reliable, reasonably powerful rifle, you gotta go SKS...Cheap. reliable and durable. How can you beat a $150, that shoots (relatively) cheap ammo, to minute-of-bad-guy out to 300-400 yards?
I agree 100%, and I don't even own an SKS. The poster said he wanted the best value for someone on a budget. The SKS wins, hands down, because it is cheap and reliable.

Ian Sean
December 30, 2006, 02:11 PM
Hmmm...Battle rifle...detatchable mag, full power cartridge type military rifle is what I always thought the accepted definition was.

The U.S. M-14, the German G-3, and the FN-FAL come to mind.

MJ
December 30, 2006, 03:10 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v130/montereyjack/DSCF0008a.jpg
:neener:

Hoppy590
December 30, 2006, 03:12 PM
see, i draw a line at "battle Rifle" and "assault rifle". there is no overlap. and the intended and actual employment is just as important as its physical charecteristics. unfortunatly the M14 just didnt make it in my mind.

the FAL is an assault rifle. its designed for volume fire and to be used as an assault rifle.

the M14's in service in iraq are differant animals all together.

Hmmm...Battle rifle...detatchable mag, full power cartridge type military rifle is what I always thought the accepted definition was.


so whats a 1903? Garand?

RockRifle
December 30, 2006, 03:13 PM
the last TRUE " battle rifle" as far as i know is really the M1 garand. i WOULD say the M14, but that doesnt fufill the "aimed fire" requirement

It has only been recently that AR's have edged out M1A's and M14's at Camp Perry in the Service Rifle catagory, and I believe that is because paper doesn't care about stopping power. The less recoil of the 223 lends itself to rapid fire. That said, I don't understand how a rifle that can compete at 1000yds with full power ammo doesn't meet the aimed fire requirement.

Under 100 yds, in an urban door to door environment, an M4 has the handling advantage and still has stopping power. Add a 6.8 SPC upper to increase range and stopping power.
At Range and in harsh environments the M-1 and the M-14 would better suit the needs of a mid-range rifleman. The higher ammo capacity of the M-14 would give it an edge on the M-1, but the 30cal ammo of both would give precision volume fire at range. (600-800m without a problem)
The SKS and AK provide volume fire in a harsh environment to the untrained masses, but the AR, FAL, G-3, M-1 and M-14 are capable of better accuracy. The Ak and SKS will function reliably with little maintainance in the worst conditions. (the AR will need to be cleaned more!-full of sand it don't work well at all!)

I have an M-1A, a AR-15, and a 1911. As the threat gets closer, I grab the next tool in line.

Ian Sean
December 30, 2006, 03:34 PM
the FAL is an assault rifle. its designed for volume fire and to be used as an assault rifle.


The FAL is a battle rifle, it fires a full size cartridge.

An Assault rifle fires an intermediate cartridge (AK-AR etc...).

so whats a 1903? Garand?

Oh darn. I forgot Mauser, Enfield, MAS, Tokarev, etc....I was just naming a couple of the biggies....:)

Hoppy590
December 30, 2006, 03:39 PM
alright, what ever, not worth argueing.

sacp81170a
December 30, 2006, 03:57 PM
the M14 just didnt make it in my mind

Hoppy590, not trying to stir the pot, but what about an M-14 makes it "not a battle rifle"? If it's the select fire capability, then I agree, automatic fire out of an M-14 is notoriously inaccurate. Otherwise, the major difference is that the M-14 accepts a detachable mag rather than an en bloc clip and it's chambered in 7.62 NATO rather than .30-06. Ballistically, the two rounds are almost identical. Used in semiauto mode, the M-14 is as accurate and powerful as the Garand and both are based on the same design.

Am I missing something? :confused:

(BTW, I own a Garand and an M1A and I'd be hard pressed to say which one I like better, but for a battle rifle, the M-14 wins hands down due to the 20 round magazine.)

Braith-Wafer
December 30, 2006, 04:04 PM
You forgot to add the CETME/HK's and Sturmgewehr 57 to the poll

Vern Humphrey
December 30, 2006, 04:04 PM
I've used both the M1 and M14 (the latter in pre-M21 sniper configuration) in combat, and seen the FAL in action when operating with Australians. The M14 would be my choice, and if I couldn't have an M14, then my M1 would do just fine.

DMK
December 30, 2006, 04:13 PM
Semantics aside, the SKS is the best value, as a fairly powerful and reliable semi-automatic, for a person on a budget. A CMP Garand would be a good choice too.

You could also build an AR15 over time. That would be more expensive in the long run, but it's fairly simple to do and you'd end up with a more accurate and versatile weapon IMO.

Man-O-War
December 30, 2006, 04:50 PM
Since you asked what is the best value for the money, I voted for the SKS. It's hard to beat them for reliability and the prices are usually very reasonable. I agree that the AR-15 is definitely more versatile but way more expensive. I agree with DMK about the CMP Garand though. I would have voted for it if it had been on the list.

RockyMtnTactical
December 30, 2006, 06:09 PM
I'll agree that the SKS is the best weapon dollar for dollar.

Molon Labe
December 30, 2006, 06:19 PM
Note that the list contains Main Battle Rifles and Battle Carbines:

AR 15 - Battle Carbine
AR 10 - Main Battle Rifle
AK - Battle Carbine
SKS - Battle Carbine
FAL - Main Battle Rifle

Molon Labe
December 30, 2006, 06:21 PM
BTW: the SKS is my pick.

mustanger98
December 30, 2006, 08:19 PM
I voted "Other" with M1 Garand in mind. I see I'm not the first Garand guy to hit this thread.:cool:

M110
December 30, 2006, 08:21 PM
Other = M1 Garand!!

MJ
December 30, 2006, 10:05 PM
The M-14 has all the respect I can muster and then some.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v130/montereyjack/001a.jpg

MJ
67/68
The Highlands.

rbernie
December 30, 2006, 10:09 PM
The least expensive yet still functional choices would be a Saiga in 223 for an intermediate chambering rifle and a CETME for a 308/full power rifle.

Manedwolf
December 30, 2006, 10:51 PM
If you want a .308 battle rifle, why not get one of the Saigas in .308? Kalashnikov action, and you can get 20rounders from one of the mods here.

Not surprised that a lot of people here don't even know they exist, since they don't take out glossy two-page spreads in BUY EXPENSIVE GUN magazines...

fugi
December 31, 2006, 12:05 AM
Not surprised that a lot of people here don't even know they exist, since they don't take out glossy two-page spreads in BUY EXPENSIVE GUN magazines...


actually it was mentioned halfway through page one.

Manedwolf
December 31, 2006, 12:13 AM
Mentioned, yes, but I still see an awful lot of people that seem to think that the FAL is the only .308 semiauto rifle you can currently buy off the shelf for an affordeable price.

Groundhog
December 31, 2006, 12:16 AM
IMHO the Garand would be my choice. Ammo available everywhere in this country at least. And I sure would not be going anywhere else. Sited to hit a man, sorry ladies, between the crotch and throat at 600 yds. The other weapons are all fine weapons, but where would one obtain the amount of ammo required for some kind of battle in quantity???? 30-06 available in any hardware store in the country......Just my opinion.....

mkh100
December 31, 2006, 12:21 AM
I would like to have a Saiga in 308....if nothing more than to try one out, however I think they suffer from the same accuracy issues inherent in the AK design, right? I mean the sights are the same right?

I have never seen anyone approach 4moa with any AK varient, and I have seen several try. At 200 yards or so this is not such a big factor as minute of pie plate means a kill at short range and cheap 7.62x39 is plentifull. But in going to the 308 you are seeking "rifleman" performance out to 500 yards plus....what is the point of having the cartridge ability to reach out there and touch someone if the rifle firing that cartridge is all but incapable of making the shot? Please correct me if I am wrong....

Mike

fugi
December 31, 2006, 12:49 AM
I would like to have a Saiga in 308....if nothing more than to try one out, however I think they suffer from the same accuracy issues inherent in the AK design, right? I mean the sights are the same right?

yea that'd be the case if it had a 1mm receiver as well, but it doesn't. Take a look at the accuracy of the VEPR or the RPK which also have thicker receivers.

rmmoore
December 31, 2006, 01:06 AM
There have been a lot of very good opinions and suggestions given. However, after reading this entire post, it seems that somewhere (early on), we lost track of the question in its simplest form. There are basically three parts of this question: A. Value, B. Budget, C. Possible building from parts.
Let's address these three segments with the selected rifle choices given.
A. Value=Bang for buck; bang includes many things such as price,
dependability,availabilty of ammo to keep it going bang, as well as
parts supply, all being interrelated. AK wins this
B. Budget; SKS wins hands down
C. May need to build; this is in my opinion a close one. Since I am not familiar
with your mechanical ability I will take a middle of the road approach
and call it a tie between the AR-15 and AK. I have built/worked on
them both and there's nothing fancy going on in there. I would give the
nod to the AR however simply because there are hundreds of parts
suppliers and thousands of experienced "hobbyists" who could help you
in a jam. The only reason the AR would not win the Value category is
that they are a bit more expensive to acquire completed to begin with
than the AK.

Now, are there "better" rifles? Of course. My personal favorite, the M1A/M14 isn't on the list either folks. But, it doesn't win any of the three stated categories which are in question! Well, Value possibly!!!!! But we were asked to help the Poster with HIS dilemma, using HIS prerequisite issues. I've tried to do that without any (obvious) bias. My choice? Given the question with 5 possible answers, I'd still go AR-15. Not the best caliber, but if it doesn't go bang, I can get the parts and repair it myself to make it go bang quickly and easily, ammo is plentiful and cheap not to mention currently issued to Military and Law Enforcement. It's still not my "best" choice, but among the choices given, with the restrictions placed, and the reasons stated, I think it is.
Some of you may have read my other posts and I'll freely admit I'm not a big fan of Combloc equipment. This is not due to their ability, it's personal. The AK and SKS received high marks from me within the context of this question/dilemma. Just want to put that out before someone tries to flame me for "recommending" these firearms when I've derided them other places and times!

RevolvingCylinder
December 31, 2006, 01:21 AM
"Battle rifle"? "Assault rifle"? Those titles are amusing considering all the rifles listed except for the SKS are commercial rifles or are modified to be commericial rifles.

I would say SKS and AK meet the criteria of value rifles.

Reginhild
December 31, 2006, 11:54 AM
AR15 when you consider the value of interchangeable lower with multiple available uppers. .223 ammo is also very inexpensive which should be more of a consideration when saving money than the absolutely lowest cost rifle.

You can get an inexpensive AR15 to start. Later you can get different uppers in .223 or move to other calibers as well. Each new upper is not ATF controlled as a firearm - only your lower receiver.

.50 Beowulf, 6.5 Grendel, .45 Bushmaster are some of the alternative cartridges for uppers once you tire of just having the .223.

There are accessories galore as well - you can add a few $$ here and there and end up with a high dollar rifle over a long period when starting cheap.

mio
December 31, 2006, 05:46 PM
i chose the ar 15 ive never been around a fal or an ar 10 but i know whith the ar 15 youll at least hit what youre aiming at

KINGMAX
December 31, 2006, 07:49 PM
AK - ain't pretty nor high dollar - but it will take abuse - it will get attention as well - remember only an AK sounds like an AK. :evil: What is your enemy carring? :eek:

mustanger98
December 31, 2006, 07:54 PM
If your enemy's carrying an AK, I say engage with something in .308 or .30-06, and if possible, from outside his effective range. Did I mention that among true "battle rifles" I like the M1 Garand?:cool:

10-Ring
December 31, 2006, 08:14 PM
Battle rifle on a budget??? Take a look at the Kel Tec SU 16

sigstroker
December 31, 2006, 08:41 PM
I would like to have a Saiga in 308....if nothing more than to try one out, however I think they suffer from the same accuracy issues inherent in the AK design, right? I mean the sights are the same right?

I have never seen anyone approach 4moa with any AK varient, and I have seen several try. At 200 yards or so this is not such a big factor as minute of pie plate means a kill at short range and cheap 7.62x39 is plentifull. But in going to the 308 you are seeking "rifleman" performance out to 500 yards plus....what is the point of having the cartridge ability to reach out there and touch someone if the rifle firing that cartridge is all but incapable of making the shot? Please correct me if I am wrong....

Mike

Could be part of the reason the Israelis switched to the M16.

fugi
December 31, 2006, 11:53 PM
the only reason the israelis have m16s is because america gives them aid and they have to spend a large percent of that aid on american products to feed our economy, and the m16 is a piece of that. they've had issues in the sandier parts of isreal with the m16 and m249. they're quite fond of the kalashnikov style long-stroke gas piston and rotating bolt in the galil and new tavor.

Redneck with a 40
January 1, 2007, 02:13 AM
I vote for the SKS, I own one and love it. IMO, its the best rifle/carbine out there for someone on a budget, best bang for the buck. Its simple, reliable, almost indestructible, and its plenty accurate for its intended purpose, anti-personnel.:D I paid $150 for mine in excellent condition, nothing else compares to it in that price range. The only negative as far as I'm concerned is weight, the SKS weighs damn near 10 lbs.

If I were given the choice between an M-16 or an AK in a warzone/battlefield, I would choose the AK hands down. The AK will fire in conditions that will jam up an M-16 severely, think sand, mud, debris, harsh battlefield environments. The AK is not as accurate as the M-16, I say "so what", it'll get the job done. Case in point, the soldiers in Iraq, they clean their M-16's three times a day, regardless of whether they fire it or not. When sandstorms come around, the soldiers walk around with condoms on the end of their barrels, because the M-16 does not like sand.:neener: Bottom line, if I'm in a warzone, screw the M-16.:p I'd rather have an AK for 1/4 of the cost.

IronSightRot671
January 1, 2007, 02:34 AM
Though I don't have any of them yet.. I'll go with a saiga-308,sks,ak47 varient..
while I'm into ar15's, I'm saving up for a probably a Romy model (ak).. and the other mentioned above.(saiga) for alittle more money,I'll say build a reasonable priced ar15. for under $900.00 dollar price range. as well as a JLD 308 ETR91 model.

DT!

mrmeval
January 1, 2007, 11:53 AM
it's under 70 bucks and ammo is cheap.

BsChoy
January 1, 2007, 01:05 PM
Based on my limited experience with the AR (I am a LEO and we carry them) I have to say the ease of recoil and ability to place quick shots on target is my big appeal to the AR-15.

HorseSoldier
January 1, 2007, 01:34 PM
see, i draw a line at "battle Rifle" and "assault rifle". there is no overlap. and the intended and actual employment is just as important as its physical charecteristics. unfortunatly the M14 just didnt make it in my mind.

the FAL is an assault rifle. its designed for volume fire and to be used as an assault rifle.


Kind of an apples and oranges thing calling the M1 a battle rifle. "Battle rifle" is a term invented by the apologists for the M14 in an effort to explain the "wisdom" of the US military adopting a weapon that was an utter flop as an assault rifle (whatever other strengths it might have). It has never been an official term in military nomenclature, but unofficially is used to describe a rifle chambered for a full-power cartridge (.308 etc), firing from a detachable box magazine, and intended for general issue sort of use.

As others have said, the FAL, G3, and M14 are pretty classic definitions of the "battle rifle" -- probably because the term was invented to define the characteristics of those weapons. The M1 Garand, while quite battle proven and such, would not be a "battle rifle" due to the lack of detachable box magazine, etc.

the only reason the israelis have m16s is because america gives them aid and they have to spend a large percent of that aid on american products to feed our economy, and the m16 is a piece of that. they've had issues in the sandier parts of isreal with the m16 and m249. they're quite fond of the kalashnikov style long-stroke gas piston and rotating bolt in the galil and new tavor.

That would make lots of sense, except that the M16/CAR-15/M4 are the preferred weapons for actual shooters in the IDF -- infantry guys, special operations and recon units, etc. The Galil lingers minimally as a personal defense weapon for people who have better things to do than lug a rifle or carbine. If the Galil was the better option, you'd think the roles would be reversed.

Black Snowman
January 1, 2007, 01:46 PM
If I were going to buy a "battle rifle" right now it would be a PTR-91.

Magnum88C
January 1, 2007, 02:47 PM
Of the ones on your list, this would be my order of preference:
FAL
AK
SKS
AR-15
AR-10


Including other options, I'd pick:
FAL/L1A1
G3/clone
M14
M1
AK
AR-15
SKS
No4 SMLE
K31/1911SR
A K98 variant
A Mosin nagant variant

AdamXBT
January 1, 2007, 04:04 PM
Actually I Have An Ak,But I Choose A AR-15.

44AMP
January 1, 2007, 06:31 PM
While there was an accepted definition of the term "assault rifle" (before the gun grabbers started calling everthing with a pistol grip and detachable mag an "assault weapon"), there was no specific definition of the term "battle rifle". But there was a generally accepted definition. Here they are.

Assault rifle: Selective fire military style rifle firing an intermediate size cartridge.

These two features (selective fire and intermediate size round) are the key factors in whether or not a particular rifle fits the definition.

Battle rifle: A military style rifle used (or intended for use) in combat firing a "full power" (or full sized) round. The key factor here is military use (actual or intended), and the full power cartridge. Note that it makes no mention of action type. Bolt actions (even muzzleloaders) were the "battle rifles" of their day. Later designs were selective fire, but they retained the full power cartridge.

Full power rounds are judged by the standards of the early 20th century. Rounds that match the ballistic envelope used by the cartridges of major powers during WWI/WWII in their main service rifles. Some of the rounds during the wars are lighter and less powerful than others, but they are still considered as "full size" or full power rounds.

This includes ALL recognised standards, as well as some of the lesser known ones. .30-06, .308, 7.62x54R, .303 British, 8mm Mauser, 7.7mm Jap, 7.5mm Swiss, are all ballistically close to each other. Lighter cartridges include the 6.5mm Jap, 6.5mm Carcano, 6.5mm Swede, and others. There are quite a few military rounds that will fall into this broad range, even though not used in major wars (ex. 7.65mm Argentine), they should still qualify.

"Intermediate" cartidges were developed during WWII, with the intent of creating a lighter handier rifle/ammo combination, (which used less valuable resources) and still had sufficient power for combat. More powerful than standard pistol rounds, but not as large and powerful as full size rifle rounds. The German 7.92x33mm was the first fielded. Later the Soviet 7.62x39mm was introduced, and became the Communist standard worldwide.

The US took the concept and went a slightly different route. The .30 Carbine (an oversized pistol round) was developed and fielded as a replacement rifle for troops who's main function was not combat, as it was recognised that they needed something with more range and more easily used than a pistol. The (relatively) light carbines found favor with the combat troops, because of their size/weight, and their firepower (15rnds vs 8, standard) Later, when the US decided the full size round was no longer needed for riflemen, we went a different route, going to a small bore high speed round, the 5.56mm (.223). This was a departure from the regular intermediate round formula, as previous designs had retained the full power round's bore size. Although we went about it a different way, the overall effect was approximately the same. A round with a useable combat range of between 300-400 meters.

Now, we are talking about civilian legal (semi auto) rifles, so technically the term assault rifle does not apply. However, thanks to the gun grabbers muddying the popular definition, assault rifle and assault weapon is used by many for any rifle that looks like an actual assault rifle. Call it what you want, but if you are going to get into guns, learn the real difference.

Of the guns on your list, only the AR10 and the FAL would be proper battle rifles. AR15, SKS, and AK are not. Call them carbines, or semiautomatic assault rifles (an anti gunner's term), but they are not to be considered battle rifles, due to the round that they shoot.

Of those listed, the best bargin is the SKS, in terms of dollars, as long as the round meets your requirements for range and power. If you need an actual battle rifle round, trhe FAL is cheaper than the AR 10.

Hope this helps.

marcodelat
January 1, 2007, 06:51 PM
Why are M14s such forgotten /disregarded weapons?

For me, a man who is (reasonably) physical fit, and in good health could do no better than choosing a 14 as a "battle rifle".

High Planes Drifter
January 1, 2007, 07:10 PM
I'll take my M1A 7.62 thank you. But would fell every bit as comfortable with an M1 .30-06.

fugi
January 1, 2007, 08:34 PM
That would make lots of sense, except that the M16/CAR-15/M4 are the preferred weapons for actual shooters in the IDF -- infantry guys, special operations and recon units, etc. The Galil lingers minimally as a personal defense weapon for people who have better things to do than lug a rifle or carbine. If the Galil was the better option, you'd think the roles would be reversed.

I don't know how many IDF you talk to, but the ones that help me with my hebrew say the opposite. They mostly prefer the tavor over both. Those I talk to include people who get called out to have rocks thrown at them, tank drivers, some stationed in the golan heights, and some engineers. Maybe you've been talking to the euro-israelis.

SamTuckerMTNMAN
January 3, 2007, 07:22 PM
them SK's

:D

st

cracked butt
January 3, 2007, 08:45 PM
Which Battle Rifle is the best Valu for a person on a budget

SKS- you can still pick up a Yugo SKS for about $100.
If you need a cheap rifle that will reliably bang off 10 rounds between reloads with adequate accuracy, you can't beat the SKS.

HorseSoldier
January 4, 2007, 12:29 PM
Why are M14s such forgotten /disregarded weapons?


:confused: Subjective pluses or minuses of the M14 aside, you can't seem to swing a dead cat on the internet without accidentally hitting a dozen guys who will tell you the M14/M1A is the current state of the art military rifle, cure for cancer, way to fix troubled marriages, and the true key to grilling a really good steak.

HorseSoldier
January 4, 2007, 12:35 PM
I don't know how many IDF you talk to, but the ones that help me with my hebrew say the opposite. They mostly prefer the tavor over both. Those I talk to include people who get called out to have rocks thrown at them, tank drivers, some stationed in the golan heights, and some engineers. Maybe you've been talking to the euro-israelis.

Or your huge sample size is skewed by the guys who get a Galil whether they wanted it or not (since your list includes PDW schleppers like tank crews) and some wishful thinking (Tavor).

The basic reality remains the same, though -- the IDF shooters use AR-15 derived weapons. The Galil is for guys who need a weapon for self defense, not the offensive use of a rifle or cabine against the bad guys.

mrmeval
January 4, 2007, 01:23 PM
horse soldier
Subjective pluses or minuses of the M14 aside, you can't seem to swing a dead cat on the internet without accidentally hitting a dozen guys who will tell you the M14/M1A is the current state of the art military rifle, cure for cancer, way to fix troubled marriages, and the true key to grilling a really good steak.

I hear it makes a good long pig BBQ. :p

possum
January 5, 2007, 12:14 AM
it depends on the budget i guess, but if you could afford any of the above i would say the ar for many reasons and my second choice would be the ak.

KINGMAX
January 7, 2007, 09:59 AM
Why did you chose a Mosin Nagant for a battle rifle. it would be hard to lay much suppression file w/ a Mosin Nagant .

It is one heck of a sniper rifle for it's time, but that has past. It does carry alot of history. The Mosin Nagant is one of my favorite to collect, last count - I own eight of them, still looking for more. I look for something different in each of them. My last one was all chrome w/ a laminated stock.

My selection of a 'Battle Rifle' would be an AK47. REASON: Cost is within most budgets. Plenty of repair parts if you ever need them. AMMO - it at one time was cheap and plenty for all to stock up on, no more. But if you happen to find yourself in a true 'War Zone', the AK will be there as well, along w/ any ammount of ammo to go along w/ the rifle.

If you enjoyed reading about "What "Battle" Rifle" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!