[Westley]

I want to throw down up to $1200 dollars for a rifle, and I'm trying to decide what kind of gun I want. I want a rifle that will be accurate at long ranges and fire a big enough round for large game (7.62), but also be useful for home defence and target shooting. I'd also prefer one that wouldn't jam in the heat of the moment, and if it did jam, it would be easy to take apart and fix. That's the main reason I don't really want an AR-15. I was leaning towards a Galil, because it seems to be an excellent all around battle rifle, that won't be as nitpicky, but in the future I'd like to get an aimpoint or EOtech, as well as a nightvision scope, and it seems difficult to get a rail mounted on such a weapon while mantaining durabilty and accuracy. Any suggestions?

[cat9x]

Ar-10 or M1A (socom 16)

[kcmarine]

Hm... not disputing your reason, but why not an AR?

[gnut]

I can't wait to read all the replies...oooh
socom16?
Galil sounds good,
I like this project. Might have to come up with my own do all auto.
Does it have to be "assault"?
Or did you mean autoloading?
Are mags important?
To me they would be. You could load one for every type of situation.

[rcmodel]

You don't really want an assault rifle.
They are full-auto capable and against the law in many places. They are also very expensive & hard to find, since there have been no new ones legally made for civilian sale in the U.S. since 1986.

What you really want is an HDR (Homeland Defense Rifle) that looks like a real select-fire military assault rifle, but is only a semi-automatic.

rcmodel

[MinnMooney]

Ar-10 or M1A (socom 16)

Lots of great choices out there including an AR-15 in one of the newer calibers (for ARs, anyway) like .243Win., 6.8SPC or 6.5 creedmoor.

[armoredman]

vZ-58

[Z-Michigan]

The "Galils" that are available under $1200 do not get good reviews. They are made from parts kits on apparently questionable receivers.

I think a FN-FAL would be a good option, and the STG-58 from DS Arms would be right around $1200. (Note: STG-58 is different from the more expensive SA-58; but both are great.)

Another good choice would be an AR-10 variant. The Armalite would be my pick and would be right around $1200. The DPMS is probably fine and is more like $900.

An AR-15 type in 6.8 SPC would be another option, but the ammo is super pricey.

[VolDaddy]

How about the new sig 556. Thats what ive been drooling over for awile now.
Just waiting to get my tax return back this year.

[everallm]

You didn't define what, for you long range and accurate would be so for reliability and practical, what about an FAL or for a lower cost a Saiga.

For the FAL can buy a replacement DSA Arms upper slide with a picatinny mount for optics mounting for about $80.

[Kind of Blued]

What you really want is an HDR (Homeland Defense Rifle) that looks like a real select-fire military assault rifle, but is only a semi-automatic.

I actually rather like that term. I'd be fine with the media adopting it too. :rolleyes:

[jorjohn11]

http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc271/jorjohn11/deer07079-1-1.jpg

[younganddumb]

m1a!

[H2O MAN]

A lightly used SOCOM 16 plus the new muzzle device kit from SEI would be a great choice.
You could add an UltiMAK M8 rail and an Aimpoint Micro optic as funds permit.

Or you could go nuts and build a MK14 EBR!!
This one started out as a $400.00 Norinco receiver...

http://www.athenswater.com/images/Mod-1_T-1.jpg

.

[Beren]

Saiga 308. Save half your money, get a side-mount and you can mount various optics.

I may pick one up myself, prior to Obama's coronation.

http://gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=112222207

If you want, you can invest more money and have it converted to a parts-count compliant pistol grip version, iirc.

[Domino]

The RFB is supposed to come out in December, pictured on top...

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a57/Mudd262/rfb-18.jpg

.308 Winchester, 18" barrel, takes FAL magazines, ambidextrious, and OAL is 26.5". Looks promising to me, but MSRP is ~$1,800.

[Sunray]

"...All-purpose Assault Rifle..." Defined as a rifle/carbine using the same calibre bullet as the PBI rifle in a shorter case and select fire. There have been exactly two 'assault rifles', ever. The Stg44 and the AK-47. Everything else is a battle rifle.
"...I'd be fine with the media adopting it..." Not scary enough.
"...like to get..." Buy an M1A and leave all the excess stuff off of it.

[NonConformist]

I disagree, all rifles in a big cartridge like .308 is a 'Battle Rifle'

Since the M-16 fires an intermediate cartridge Id classify it as an AW, same as the AR-70, SA80 series of rifles, DaeWoo K2 etc

not to be confused w/ an AR-15 which is a HDR or EBR :D

[Rampant_Colt]

"Assault rifle" :rolleyes:

that's all...

[Alydar]

I don't think it is possible to have both a big-game rifle and a home defense rifle in one, at least if you're talking about inside the home. Maybe a 12 gauge--great for inside and around the home, and for longer distances you could put a rifled barrel on it and shoot slugs. I know I wouldn't want to shoot any rifle caliber beginning with the number 3 inside my home. I've got a Mossberg 12 and a Saiga 308, and those take care of pretty much all my short and long range defensive needs. They serve similar purposes, but would be used in completely different situations. You could get them both for way under your $1200 budget.

[Z-Michigan]

I don't think it is possible to have both a big-game rifle and a home defense rifle in one, at least if you're talking about inside the home.

I think an 18" barreled .308 semiauto would fill both roles very well. Longer and its getting long for HD, shorter and its limiting your hunting range. But 18" is a great compromise, and is available (e.g. PTR-91, various FAL's, DPMS AR-10 type).

I know I wouldn't want to shoot any rifle caliber beginning with the number 3 inside my home.

Personally I don't want to ever shoot even a .22 rimfire in my house. But it would be better than dying.

Overpenetration may be an issue depending on where you live and how your house is arranged. But it's an issue with almost anything worth using for HD. The best compromise is probably a shotgun with #4 buck, but I digress...

I've got a Mossberg 12 and a Saiga 308, and those take care of pretty much all my short and long range defensive needs. They serve similar purposes, but would be used in completely different situations. You could get them both for way under your $1200 budget.

This would also be a very reasonable approach.

Actually, for $1200 you could get a good AK-type and a decent bolt-action hunting rifle; or a semiauto 12ga shotgun and a bolt-action hunting rifle; or a WASR, a 12ga shotgun, AND an OK bolt-action rifle. The VZ-58 or a high end AK type, by itself, would also be reasonable if your hunting is no bigger than deer and not much more than 100 yards range. Lots of options.

[Gewehr98]

What's an assault rifle? :scrutiny:

(I know, but I fear the OP doesn't...)

[Westley]

assault rifle
–noun 1. a military rifle capable of both automatic and semiautomatic fire, utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge.
2. a nonmilitary weapon modeled on the military assault rifle, usu. modified to allow only semiautomatic fire.


When I said Assault Rifle, I didn't mean I actually wanted full-auto, just that I wanted an Assault Rifle that would be a compact accurate, all-purpose semi-automatic that I could further mod later. How often do AR-15's jam?

[Westley]

*** is THAT? And why does something so overpowered like that not have giant drum clips? Seriously, that gun took way too many steroids.

[NWCP]

An HK91 clone. It would be nice to have the real deal, but HK91 prices have gone through the roof. The action is rock solid reliable they fire the .308 Winchester and are accurate. You could take most any North American game with one and still have one heck of a personal defense weapon. I've owned my HK91 for a few years now and really enjoy shooting it.

[C-grunt]

A good AR15 is very reliable as long as you take care of it. Keep it lubed and clean it once in a while and you'll be fine. If you shoot 500 rounds through it and put it away dirty, you might have problems the next time you go out. Every service member who has been in the sandbox on this board, including myself, will tell you the M16 works well if you take care of it. They are great rifles and you shouldnt be turned off because of what you hear on the internet.

But as you say it will also be a hunting rifle, I would go with an M1A. My uncle uses one as his hog gun on his ranch and he says it works wonderfully. He was using a .444 (something) and he wasnt getting good clean kills on the pigs so he switched and hasnt looked back.

[C-grunt]

Plus if you use the Hornady 110 grn TAP rounds for home defense, it should reduce over penetration significantly.

[chieftain]

what defines an "assault rifle"

Intermediate Power cartridge, magazine fed, with full Auto capability.

Rather simple, actually.

Some folks would argue that leaves out the AR family. You would have to increase the power of the 5.56 NATO family of cartridges UP to intermediate power.

Go figure.

Fred

[rfurtkamp]

I'll avoid the semantic debate etc that bogs down the original question; doesn't accomplish much in the scheme of things.

One gun that does everything you're asking doesn't exist. One that is match accurate (when matches are won by 5.56mm ARs, not .308s, in the vast majority of places these days), that is reliable (yet remains accurate enough for target shoooting) and easy to dissassemble in the event of a jam, and is compact enough to use as a home defense gun.

But we're not done, you also want one light enough to put a night vision scope on, and that remains a $1200 rifle. And an incredibly bulky one at that. You're talking 4 pounds additional (plus large amount of bulk) for a PVS-4 (and $3500-4500 for the scope) or 6 pounds and a crapshoot roll on the tube/performance on a PVS-2. We'll ignore the imported junk, because well, what you get is generally just that.

How often are you realistically going to use the night vision? I ask this because most people don't do much but look out the window once when they get it, and unless in rural areas the opportunity for use is extremely limited. Without practice, it's not something that you want to be fumbling with SHTF time. I also comment on it as an owner of one, I have a PVS-2 I was able to inspect before purchase, and am extremely happy with its performance, but weight on a 308 is *obscene*. I originally put it on a FAL. Can you say 16 pound rifle that's the size of of a polearm? I bet you can. Carried it around doing some night shooting practice (legal and safe and all that here), put it on an AR the literal minute I got home. It also wasn't complete without buying a supressor (where legal) for it, adding even more to the package price and weight.

.308 indoors is a loud, ugly, mean thing. My ready-to-use Vector V51 sbr with a 8.5" barrel (which costs well over your requirements with tax stamp, and will fail on the 'match accurate' demand since it's a 1.5-2.5 MOA gun) is louder than sin indoors. It is literally in the 'would be deaf almost immediately' category, with what I'd wager would be a near 100% chance of permanent hearing loss. I keep a HVT suppressor (add another 4 figures for can, stamp, and threading) on it praying to never have to use it indoors even with the can, and it's still a near-full-sized battle rifle that's not particularly handy to use with it attached.

That said, what I'm suggesting here is that you seriously, seriously rethink your wants with your needs and what you can afford.

[H2O MAN]

Westley *** is THAT?

18.0" 7.62 x 51 NATO M14 Enhanced Battle Rifle.

A 25 round mag is as much as you would want to stick in the mag well.

[Mr_Pale_Horse]

You want high capacity, buy 20 Mosins and keep them all loaded!

[Rifleman 173]

Robinson XCR in 7.62 X 39 should be just about what most shooters need in about 99.99% of the time.

[Nolo]

Why do people keep insisting that .308 rifles are assault rifles or semi-auto cousins of assault rifles?
AR-10s, FALs, M14s, G3s, etc. are all NOT assault rifles, even in fully auto form.
They are battle rifles, in classic '50s form.
Now, calling a semi-auto clone of an assault rifle is silly, but it, in the end, makes little difference. They're the same platform as assault rifles, merely without the fun switch.
As for a specific name for said rifles? Carbines. Battle rifles. Evil Black Rifles.
I always thought the "SUR" names and stuff like that were silly. But I can't criticize a lot because I myself can't come up with anything better. However, I still think they miss the point of those rifles.

[Rampant_Colt]

assault rifle
–noun 1. a military rifle capable of both automatic and semiautomatic fire, utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge.
2. a nonmilitary weapon modeled on the military assault rifle, usu. modified to allow only semiautomatic fire.


When I said Assault Rifle, I didn't mean I actually wanted full-auto, just that I wanted an Assault Rifle that would be a compact accurate, all-purpose semi-automatic that I could further mod later. How often do AR-15's jam?
wrong!

"Assault rifle" is a misleading term used by the biased anti-gun media as a slanderous representation of any evil black rifle that uses a detatchable magazine.

AR-15's don't jam when they're suitably maintained.

[MarcusWendt]

Is it some kind of internet rule that we must flog and trounce anyone who uses a term incorrectly?

Geez guys, just help the guy out.

IMHO, what you are looking for is an M1A Scout or SOCOM.

My set up is this. I'm in an urban environment with more rural area all around me. It's not inconceivable that I might have to survive in both.

I own an M1A standard for any distance work and am searching for an AR or Sig 556 for the urban scenario.

I'm not worried about zombies or an invasion from Russia. I'm thinking more aobut protecting myself and family in the event of an Earthquake or other natural disaster where societal norms go by the wayside and the usual band of idiots sees opportunity.

[Nolo]

Honestly, if there were a lot more ammo, I'd say something in 6.5 Grendel or even 6.8 SPC would do you well.
A cartridge intermediate between 5.56 and 7.62 NATO hits this nice sweet spot of capability.

[H2O MAN]

The 6.5 Grendel or even 6.8 SPC are OK, but supply sucks!

Stick with the standards.

[Goblin]

Self defense and hunting? Ok...SKS for street zombies, Mossberg for home defense, and a bolt gun in 7.62 for hunting. Save $600.00 for ammo!!:)

[rob_s]

Buy an AK.

Chances are it shoots better than you anyway.

[KBintheSLC]

M1a

FN-FAL

Saiga in .308... if you wanna save some of that $ for ammo and accessories.

[AlexSpartan]

M1A Scout or Socom II or 16. Handy, reliable, powerful, easy to take apart and clear a malfunction or replace broken parts.

[chieftain]

AR-15's don't jam when they're suitably maintained.

I know a bunch of guys who died and were wounded with clean AR type rifles. What would you call that. Bad luck?

Part I
http://www.jouster.com/articles30m1/index.html :cuss:

Part II
http://www.jouster.com/articles30m1/M16part2.html :cuss:

Read ALL of these two articles written by Col Culver. I got to the 3rdMarDiv and was attached to 3rd Marines near the end of his tour. I concur with his article totally.

Read about what the AR really did by a guy that was there, and not some after action study or investigation that is/was done to cover some brass hat a$$.

This is about facts. Not the Kool Aid that the AR system still needs to be sold to a whole new generation as a viable system. Even with today's studies (within the last two years) that show/prove how unreliable the system is, and how the cartridge needs all the help it can get, the Army still clings to its clearly religious belief in a rifle no military would CHOOSE to use. Even with it's low count for maintenance.

I don't know of any other rifle/carbine system that needs major maintenance at 6500 rounds. That makes the AR system awfully expensive to maintain. Or as often the case the rifle doesn't get properly PM's by depot. Just guess what the ultimate result of that is. Yup, even an additional reason for the rifle/carbine to jam.

What we need is a more reliable rifle, with a more robust round. We presently have two to choose from, 6.8 SPC, 6.5 Grendel. I don't believe there is enough data to make a final choice, but it appears the 6.8 is edging the 6.5 at this point.

Please read ALL of this article http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Roberts.pdf :what:

Real science and experience, not kool aid. Our troops need and deserve the best fighting rifle/carbine and cartridge we can get them, not that DAMN widowmaker. :banghead:

Go figure.

Fred

[kcmarine]

That was the M16 in Vietnam. Things have changed since then. Plenty of soldiers use it on an everyday basis and are still alive. 86% of soldiers expressed confidence in the M4A1 platform in a recent military survey.

Also, there is ZERO, I repeat, ZERO reason that a civilian member of this board shouldn't be able to keep up an AR-15 in perfect shape. NONE. Odds are VERY good that a member here (a civilian member) will not drag an AR-15 through the mud, dust, and slush. Even if they do, again, good maintenance will keep the rifle running. Comparing the modern M16A2 based AR-15 to the M16 of the Vietnam War is like comparing a recently- made Chevrolet (which are a good quality car, if you haven't heard) to a Yugo. It makes no sense to do so.

[barry960]

Fun stuff, HDRs, my favorites. For me, it kind of bugs me if the rifle is limited to 20 round mags when 30 is so available for certain other rifles. Better yet, I like to have the ability to supply a Beta-C 100 round twin snails drum, or at least a single snail.

Why limit yourself to one all-around rifle though? I understand the thoughtfulness, and I have my one all-around rifle myself, but it's among other potential HDRs that I also have. I pick my AR as the go-to out of the collection because I feel it just shoots the most reliably for me, and accurately, and I am readily prepared with 300 rounds that are good to go. I always wanted an HK91 or clone, but ended up with a L1A1 sporterized Canadian rifle which was a pretty good deal at the time I found it. There's something awkward about that thing, so I'd like another 308 some day, but it seems to function fine.

[chieftain]

That was the M16 in Vietnam. Things have changed since then. Plenty of soldiers use it on an everyday basis and are still alive. 86% of soldiers expressed confidence in the M4A1 platform in a recent military survey.

Things have changed. The carbine in it's newest version, the M4 is more unreliable than the "rifle" version. And the most dramatic failure of the rifle was when Jessica Lynch's unit was essentially wiped out and captured aided and abetted by the NEW M16 failing when another GI needed his/her rifle most. Nothing new here. By the way that was 2003, 35 years AFTER I saw the first M16 jam in combat. At least they are consistent.

By the way, that leaves 14% that are not happy. Many complaining of the rifle failing during firefights. Not a quick clear jam, there more than plenty of them, but unable to continue the action. I guess that is okay with you. I fought the M14, and the M16. I also did my initial infantry training with the M1 Garand.

My M14 never jammed. I am sure some did, I never saw one jam though. Now I only did two 13 month tours in Vietnam with 3rdMarDiv. I am sure you have a lot more combat time than I did.

Also, there is ZERO, I repeat, ZERO reason that a civilian member of this board shouldn't be able to keep up an AR-15 in perfect shape. NONE. Odds are VERY good that a member here (a civilian member) will not drag an AR-15 through the mud, dust, and slush. Even if they do, again, good maintenance will keep the rifle running. Comparing the modern M16A2 based AR-15 to the M16 of the Vietnam War is like comparing a recently- made Chevrolet (which are a good quality car, if you haven't heard) to a Yugo. It makes no sense to do so.

Fact is in most Tactical shooting schools, they have a lot of problems with civilian AR systems, to this day. That is a norm, not an exception. Fact is that quality and maintenance are still major issues with civilian rifles/carbines as soon as they are pushed. I would agree with you, if all one did with their rifle was sit under a covered range and shoot at static paper targets from a static position.

Nope that auto analogy is apples and oranges. Compare the Chevrolet that they built back then, and are still building today. They are not. Why, because what they do today is "BETTER" different and improved than the stuff used back then. In fact you might not be able to tell that the two are related. That sure didn't happen with the M16 family. It is not THAT much better than the rifles we were issued back then, and they certainly aren't that different, are they? THEY HAVEN'T REALLY IMPROVED IT. ALL THEY DID WAS PUT LIPSTICK ON IT! In fact the Corps originally refused the M4 because IIRC they had 3 or 4 times more FTF than the Rifle, during stress tests of the two systems. (rifle M16 vs Carbine M4)

Per you title kcmarine, I presume you are a juggy too. How many of your buddies in your outfit need to be killed or wounded directly because of a weapons failure before you would not trust a weapons system??? Even 40 years later, when American troops are still being captured, killed, and wounded because of weapons failures OF THE SAME RIFLE. Even if it has been patched together, or upgraded to continue to stumble on. I believe it has happened because we haven't been in heavy and intense infantry based action until this present war.

Some things never change. But the kool aid continues to flow.

Go figure.

Fred

[MyTFAL]

FnFAL

[rob_s]

Having taken a few of these training classes...

Without fail every malfunction I've witnessed with the AR that is not ammo or magazine related has been due to tinkering or poor quality parts (often aftermarket). This is not an indicator of design issues with the firearm but knowledgebase issues with the end user.

I'm not military, or even prior military, but the guys I know that are and that have their heads screwed on straight don't have any complaints with the M4/A4.

My experience with the causes of malfunctions in non-military users makes me wonder if the same can't be said for the military users.

[Z-Michigan]

That was the M16 in Vietnam. Things have changed since then. Plenty of soldiers use it on an everyday basis and are still alive. 86% of soldiers expressed confidence in the M4A1 platform in a recent military survey.

I don't want to get between two marines here - as I'm a civvie with no combat experience - but please read the entire presentation that he linked to. It is a great read and I think the story needs to get out broadly.

IMHO, the only countries that have adopted the M16 type platform either get them free from us (Israel) or wanted to have their army be similar to ours and maybe also got coerced (Canada, a few others).

The AR/M16 isn't awful, but it's dated and far better designs are available. Most of them are also cheaper to build. They may not be cheaper to US civvies due to our gun laws and the competition effect of perhaps 100 different AR-15 makers.

Now, I have a few civvie AR's and they are reliable in my experience - unless the mag is bad or isn't seated right, in which case there is an instant jam, usually a double feed. Not a huge deal, but not good. Unseated mag is a user error, but a fairly easy one to make in many cases.

I agree that a civvie can easily keep an AR clean. My AR's usually go from safe to range, shoot 20-50 rds, get cleaned thoroughly, and back in the safe. Not exactly hard duty for them.

For comparison, my Ruger P-series pistols won't jam unless I go to great efforts to induce a jam, and even then only sometimes. They usually get shot several 100 times in a practice session. I have very limited Saiga/AK time but so far they are flawless, despite clearly being built to a lower standard than a typical AR in nearly all ways.

My 3 cents.

[Rampant_Colt]

Those malfunction issues with M-16s were ironed-out 40 years ago...Weak argument.

I stand behind my comment that "AR's don't jam when suitably maintained." Does anyone seriously believe that the US Armed Forces would continue to issue an inherently jam-prone weapon?
That's a load of rubbish :rolleyes:

I didn't even bother to read the links. That's your koolaid.


Things have changed. The carbine in it's newest version, the M4 is more unreliable than the "rifle" version. And the most dramatic failure of the rifle was when Jessica Lynch's unit was essentially wiped out and captured aided and abetted by the NEW M16 failing when another GI needed his/her rifle most. Nothing new here. By the way that was 2003, 35 years AFTER I saw the first M16 jam in combat. At least they are consistent
And wasn't the main reason behind Jessica Lynch's weapon malfunction due to improper lube [CLP] and poor weapon maintenance? That's an argument for another thread.

In my personal experience using a DPMS M-15 [M4 clone] and Rock River NM, i've yet to experience a single malfunction in either rifle using every brand and bullet weight of ammunition, and THOUSANDS of rounds downrange.
No Wolf ammo in a match chamber, either...

We're talking about HOME DEFENSE here, not jungle warfare or desert warfare. Does your AR properly function and is accurate with your chosen defense load? Yes? Then consider yourself well-armed and go to sleep well. Everything else is conjecture and personal opinion.

[H2O MAN]

chieftain

My M14 never jammed. I am sure some did, I never saw one jam though.
Now I only did two 13 month tours in Vietnam with 3rdMarDiv.

It's testimonials like this that make me proud to have a nice selection of modernized M14 and AK HDWs at my disposal.

http://www.athenswater.com/images/06-14-08-X.jpg



Thank you for your service chieftain :)

[navajo]

I keep an AR-10 carbine behind my front door.
Long distance is covered with a M1A, NM.
I have owned 7 M1As and none of them ever malfunctioned. Not one. Ever.
Never had a malfunction with a M-14 either and the 14 was subjected to all kinds of dirt, sand (basic at Ft. Polk), mud, water, you name it.

[Rifleman 173]

Robinson XCR in 7.62 X 39 carbine. It handles like an M-4 but it shoots the BIGGER, more efficient bullet...

[H2O MAN]

Rifleman 173 Robinson XCR in 7.62 X 39 carbine.

Are these available with fixed/collapsible stocks?

Never mind, I found my answer and THIS (http://www.robarm.com/XCR_Technical_Updates.htm)

[rob_s]

The AR/M16 isn't awful, but it's dated and far better designs are available.

Like what?

[H2O MAN]

+1

What better designs are currently available?

[NonConformist]

Short og a G36 or HK416 etc I am wondering as well!

[goon]

FWIW - if you're trying to strip any rifle in "the heat of the moment", you're probably going to get killed.

I'd buy a FAL carbine in your position.

[H2O MAN]

I FAiL to see the logic in that suggestion :neener:

[Realbigo]

I've got to throw in my two cents here. In my 8 years in the Corps, I had one ftf out of countless thousands of rounds fired through my issued M16a2's in both training and combat. That includes in the jungle, and in the desert. Granted, after growing up hearing the never ending number of complaints about it from all of my fathers cronies, I kept my rifle as clean as I could at all times. I always have thought that the 5.56 is an underpowered round, and should have never replaced the 7.62.And if I had a choice, I'd rather carry one of the new piston driven uppers, than the standard gas system, but if I ever have to carry a rifle again, if they hand me an M16 of any sort, I'll do myt best to keep it clean and keep her shooting straight.

[Westley]

The XCR so far seems the best suggestion with the exception of the Socom 16. A Saiga also could be an interesting decision, and the ability to turn it into a semi-automatic shotgun is tempting. Socom 16's are just a little too expensive and I feel like I would be a bit more comfortable firing a weapon like the XCR. I also like the idea of the XCR because the ability to change bullet size is pretty ingenius, and I'm interested in how effective a round like 6.8 is. But the Socom 16 keeps saying buy me. How accurate is the Socom 16 at 300-400 yards?

[Westley]

Is there anywhere I can learn more about the 6.8? Does it have the punching power a 7.62 has, - ie would it take down big game, go through the same sort of materials? You can't even really fire an AR-15 bullet through a car window accurately but if you drop a couple 7.62 bullets they'll wreck an engine block. What is the 6.8 capable of?

[Rifleman 173]

Here you go. I should also tell you that the XCR is available to shoot the 6.8 SPC, 7.62 X 39 and the .223/5.56 cartridges. According to Robinson Arms, they are also hoping to have a version that shoots the 6.5 Grendel cartridges and guess what???

All the barrels are interchangeable for the XCR carbines. Buy one now in 7.62 X 39 and in a few months you can buy a different caliber barrel assembly and change it out yourself!!! Do some research on the XCR and hit YouTube for the changing of the barrels to see what I mean.

[Z-Michigan]

What better designs are currently available?

According to the Army's own tests, the HK416, FN SCAR-L, and XM8 (which is similar to an HK G36) are all greatly superior in reliability. The HK416 was fielded with an Army unit for two years before being pulled for political reasons. The SCAR-L will soon be available (or maybe is now) to SOCOM units, but not others.

There are many sources for this Army test data, but I recommend the Jim Schatz presentation available at:
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/

(see pages 101-102). That presentation also details everything else wrong with the M16/M4 weapons.

The M16/M4 continues in service because top brass won't admit it's time for a change, and politicians are happy with who the procurement contracts are going to.

Beyond those, I think the AR-180 (original), the XCR, and the AK-100+ series of AK's would all be better in reliability and give up little or nothing in other areas. (Nothing for the XCR, except I'm not aware of it yet being combat tested.)

[Westley]

Alright, I read all about 6.8- now my question is if anyone has had experience with the 6.8 and who makes the best 6.8 rounds.

[navajo]

M-16 and M-4 are probably still in use because RSM has stock in Colt and FN.
Haaaaavud whiz kids are never wrong.

[Rampant_Colt]

I've got to throw in my two cents here. In my 8 years in the Corps, I had one ftf out of countless thousands of rounds fired through my issued M16a2's in both training and combat. That includes in the jungle, and in the desert. Granted, after growing up hearing the never ending number of complaints about it from all of my fathers cronies, I kept my rifle as clean as I could at all times. I always have thought that the 5.56 is an underpowered round, and should have never replaced the 7.62.And if I had a choice, I'd rather carry one of the new piston driven uppers, than the standard gas system, but if I ever have to carry a rifle again, if they hand me an M16 of any sort, I'll do myt best to keep it clean and keep her shooting straight
Semper Fi, Realbigo!
Quoted for truth. Hooorah!

[goon]

Westley - I've shot things behind windows with .22LR's.
The damage on the target was pretty severe - it basically turned a .22LR into a shotgun loaded with glass. It may not be immediately lethal but I'd bet that your attacker wouldn't be able to see anything for the rest of his life and in one of those nasty scenarios, that probably wouldn't be very long.
I also wouldn't discount the wounding ability of the round itself.

Also, engine blocks are tough. A 7.62 will be more likely to punch through something that will tie your engine up but I still wouldn't count on penetrating the block.
Fortunately, you don't really have to. There are fuel injection systems and radiators and stuff like that on cars and if you take something like that out you won't be driving far.

I still prefer a FAL but that's a personal choice. I wouldn't feel underarmed with a good AR-15 variant.

[704338]

I'm hung up on home defense and long range shooting. Personally it sounds like to me you need a pistol and a rifle. You're not going to find any "assault" rifle that's going to meet both criteria in my opinion. Maybe if you insulated your interior and exterior walls of your home with steel.. But then you have that pesky case of ricochet. That leads me to an option of maybe a .22lr AR-15, but of course that would cut down on your big game hunting. Get a decent caliber handgun and a big caliber rifle.

It sounds to me like you just want a gun that looks super bad ass and it puts a big hole in a paper plate. Please remember this, in case of emergency, it doesn't matter how big your gun is or how many scopes and rails you have on it. A majority of the time it will be bulky and hard to maneuver. A pistol or revolver would be fine for home defense, because it's almost always the first shot that matters.

:x

[Westley]

I'd rather have a Galil than a FAL, but I'd rather have an XCR than either. I'd love to get the 6.8, but it's WAY more expensive. 7.62 is cheaper than I thought it was.

[Westley]

I understand your point about home defense- the pont is if SHTF later down the line- and it could be far too late to get a rifle like this then. I want to do it while it's still possible to get one.

[Stinkyshoe]

H2O man.

Sweet rifles at the end of page 2 there. What kind of stock is that on the M1a? Thanks!

Ss

[chieftain]

Originally Posted by Realbigo
I've got to throw in my two cents here. In my 8 years in the Corps, I had one ftf out of countless thousands of rounds fired through my issued M16a2's in both training and combat. That includes in the jungle, and in the desert. Granted, after growing up hearing the never ending number of complaints about it from all of my fathers cronies, I kept my rifle as clean as I could at all times. I always have thought that the 5.56 is an underpowered round, and should have never replaced the 7.62.And if I had a choice, I'd rather carry one of the new piston driven uppers, than the standard gas system, but if I ever have to carry a rifle again, if they hand me an M16 of any sort, I'll do myt best to keep it clean and keep her shooting straight

As Rampant Colt states thanks for your truth. As in your experience I to would and have chosen A piston driven rifle. My next 'accessory' for my XCR will be the 7.62x39 combloc conversion kit (available right now). I can change from 5.56 NATO to 7.62x39 in about 2-3 minutes. Loading the magazines will take longer. If I need 7.62 NATO I will stick with my M1A/M14.

Go figure.

Fred

[gunseller2]

Ah...no disrespect but a big game rifle that will double as a home defense rifle? I don't know about your house but mine is a little small and the neighbors a bit too close to be shooting at bad guys with a 7.62.

[goon]

I'd shoot a Galil, a FAL, an M1A, an AR-15 or two, and an XCR.
Then decide what you're going to spend your money on.

[Westley]

That's a lot of hardware to take on a test drive. The ability to change from 7.62 to 5.56 would be excellent for home defense, although I'd much rather have a pistol. Although, in my room I do have a machete, an axe, a meat cleaver, and some weapons of my own design that are indescribable.

Shooting a guy with a pistol gets the job done efficiently. A meat cleaver ensures no one will ever mess with you ever again. (J/k) And you'll find arguments much easier to win against your g/f. Does anyone else find meat cleavers more terrifying than machetes?

I wish I could afford the XCR and a 1911 40.cal or H&K compact usp. Then you're covered indoors as long as the other guy doesn't have a shotgun or sub-machine gun. Which won't happen.

[natescout]

Cant Go Wrong With A M14 Style Rifle

[45B@cav]

Socom II or AR10.

[C-grunt]

Chieftan:

I feel really bad about the Nam era soldiers/marines who had to fight with that generation M16. It was fielded way to early and the government decided to ignore Stoners requirement on the type of powder to save money. The result was a rifle that jammed often.

But rest assure that the bugs of the rifle have been worked out since then. The M16A2 is a reliable weapon when properly maintained. The only people I have seen that have had their rifles jam in my two tours in Iraq, were non combat soldiers. A lot of these guys rarely left the FOB and rarely cleaned their rifles. My unit opted for M16A4s instead of the carbine for general issue. There were only a few carbines in the company and most were carried by the officers and senior NCOs.....basically guys who didnt fire them all that much.

[ndh87]

definately either an FAL or an M1A

[HorseSoldier]

Things have changed. The carbine in it's newest version, the M4 is more unreliable than the "rifle" version. And the most dramatic failure of the rifle was when Jessica Lynch's unit was essentially wiped out and captured aided and abetted by the NEW M16 failing when another GI needed his/her rifle most. Nothing new here. By the way that was 2003, 35 years AFTER I saw the first M16 jam in combat. At least they are consistent.

Issue A -- Every weapons system assigned to Lynch's unit failed during the ambush, up to and including the sainted John Moses Browning's own M2HB. This speaks to incredibly shoddy officers and NCOs in the unit, and says nothing about the weapons systems. The same unit, armed with AKs, PKs and other "ultra-reliable" Russian kit, or anything else, would have had a similar experience for the simple reason that troops who do not care for their weapons (and unit leadership who does not enforce this if the troops don't do the right thing) will not have reliable weapons.

Issue B -- The Vietnam era M16s and modern M16A2/A4s and M4s are different. If you're not familiar with the modern weapons, ranting and raving about them and insisting they're just as flawed as the one they handed you 40 years ago is not a very productive contribution to the discussion.

[H2O MAN]

HorseSoldier Issue B -- The Vietnam era M16s and modern M16A2/A4s and M4s are different. If you're not familiar with the modern weapons, ranting and raving about them and insisting they're just as flawed as the one they handed you 40 years ago is not a very productive contribution to the discussion.

Agreed and I'll add the following:

The Vietnam era M14s and modern MK14s and M14 EBRs are different. If you're not familiar with the modern weapons, ranting and raving
about them and insisting they're just as flawed as the ones tested over 40 years ago is not a very productive contribution to any discussion.

[Wolfgang2000]

Horse Solider, I agree that they did jam a M2HB. Actually they were unable to even get it into action. I agree that ONE of the problems was lack of supervision. There were other contributing factors, some of which was the fault of the person they saw in the mirror every morning.

However, the fact remains that the AK's and the other com block weapons shooting at them DID NOT JAM!

The basic design of the M16A1 and the M16A4 are still same. I agree with proper maintenance and use of the newer lubes can improve things, but as long as it's using a gas impingement system, you will have a heat (lube cook off) carbon problem.

Like a lot of people of my generation I'm not a AR / M16 fan. During my Army tour (72-76) I've witnessed the M16 fail. I've also seen it do a lot of thing well. The older 1 n 12 barrels with the 55 grn bullet was devastating at 150 yards and in. I haven't been that impressed with the heaver bullet and the faster twist barrels. All still have troubles with car wind shields, and bodies.

I had to carry the AR family up to 96. When I no longer need a government entity approval on the weapon or caliber I carried I got rid of the AR's that I had. I went to the AK / SKS family of weapons. You see I no longer have a massive supply chain to back me up, nor do I have a company of men and access to air support.

My decision works for me. Your decision works for you. Both are right for the individual.

One last thing. Pointing out the history of a particular weapon is not clouding the issue, It's just telling the truth.

[Z-Michigan]

I'm still waiting for a compelling reply to the fact that the US Army's own sand tests, on two completely separate occasions, showed that three different piston-drive potential replacements were far more reliable than the M4. We're not talking jimbob's theory of direct impingement problems, or one random person, we're talking about the Army's own tests where they wanted the M4 to do well and it didn't.

Separately, I would think that our soldiers in the sandbox(es) would be happy to spend only 2-3 minutes a day cleaning the rifle instead of 15-30, so they could pursue their hobbies (sleeping, eating, showering...).

[RangerHAAF]

This is a new rifle(to me, anyway) by Saiga; the RAK-47. It fires the 308 round that seems to be ubiquitous in the US.

http://www.atlanticfirearms.com/beta/storeproduct409.aspx

[chieftain]

Issue A -- Every weapons system assigned to Lynch's unit failed during the ambush, up to and including the sainted John Moses Browning's own M2HB. This speaks to incredibly shoddy officers and NCOs in the unit, and says nothing about the weapons systems. The same unit, armed with AKs, PKs and other "ultra-reliable" Russian kit, or anything else, would have had a similar experience for the simple reason that troops who do not care for their weapons (and unit leadership who does not enforce this if the troops don't do the right thing) will not have reliable weapons.

No doubt there were/are leadership problems. I don't doubt these folks didn't know how to set the head space on that 'MaDeuce' either.

I have never, I repeat, NEVER, heard of such a problem with another family of weapons, in any military group. If the weapon is THAT susceptible to jamming with the difference of function vs non-function is that close, it is frankly unacceptable. Some things never change. :banghead:


Issue B -- The Vietnam era M16s and modern M16A2/A4s and M4s are different. If you're not familiar with the modern weapons, ranting and raving about them and insisting they're just as flawed as the one they handed you 40 years ago is not a very productive contribution to the discussion.

Contrary to your very wrong assumption, I am very aware of the differences. It is that knowledge and awareness that is the basis for my concern, and apparently a lot of other folks too. Hell, the Israeli's didn't trust the widow maker so much they finally developed their own rifle. Apparently they care about their troops a lot more than our leadership does.

Why, did the Israeli's spend all that money and time?? Poor reliability of the M16/M4 systems. No doubt they didn't like 14% of their troops, that survived, being placed at risk. (remember those are only the ones that lived to complain about their weapons failing)

The bolt still sucks, it is the only major weapons system that I know of that the operator often carries an additional bolt, to replace the broken one, in the rifle. The existing bolt is simply to weak. The heat from the gas impingement exacerbates that weakness.

A very similar problem exists with the extractors. Again the very nature of the system exacerbates the innate weakness of it's to small and weak extractor.

Today, last week, 40 years ago. They ain't fixed that $h!t.

Some things never change! :banghead:

I'm still waiting for a compelling reply to the fact that the US Army's own sand tests, on two completely separate occasions, showed that three different piston-drive potential replacements were far more reliable than the M4. We're not talking jimbob's theory of direct impingement problems, or one random person, we're talking about the Army's own tests where they wanted the M4 to do well and it didn't.


BINGO!!!:eek:

Don't forget that earlier the Corps had found in their testing the M4 jammed 3 or 4 times more often than the M16 Rifle. (I really don't remember the model sitting here right now)

Don't let any of that sandy factoid stuff get in the kool aid, though. It is similar to the FAL folks who ignore the fact that in Yemen the Brits had to modify their FAL,s because of the sand causing them to jam too. They had to make "sand cuts" in/on the bolt, to increase the FAL's reliability in the desert.

Many folks who have only fought with the M16 family, just don't know any difference.

Go figure.

Fred

[Wolfgang2000]

Chieftain, I have to agree with you. The bottom line is that middle eastern sand is VERY hard on guns.

I dumped that AR's kept the FAL. :)

[BigBuckMaster]

springfield SOCOM. look it up. dont doubt me.

[Wolfgang2000]

I'll stick to my FAL Scout. :cool:

[younganddumb]

to the OP wait till the ACR I am

[chieftain]

to the OP wait till the ACR I am

Why? It's vaporware.

Go figure.

Fred

[Mahk]

I'm pretty fond of this one. Only costs $900 dollars, quality is as good as or better than HK, better barrel than HK. Magazines are $30 dollars for 10.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y151/skslvr/Guns/PTR91%20SP01/camera-pictures007.jpg

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y151/skslvr/Guns/PTR91%20SP01/camera-pictures016.jpg

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y151/skslvr/Guns/PTR91%20SP01/camera-pictures002.jpg

[C-grunt]

PTR??

Beautiful rifle.

[Mahk]

Yes, and thank you.

[HorseSoldier]

Contrary to your very wrong assumption, I am very aware of the differences. It is that knowledge and awareness that is the basis for my concern, and apparently a lot of other folks too.

Really? I still don't hear many current end users complaining, just a lot of folks on the internet . . .

Hell, the Israeli's didn't trust the widow maker so much they finally developed their own rifle. Apparently they care about their troops a lot more than our leadership does.

Why, did the Israeli's spend all that money and time?? Poor reliability of the M16/M4 systems. No doubt they didn't like 14% of their troops, that survived, being placed at risk. (remember those are only the ones that lived to complain about their weapons failing)

It's a neat little story, just completely wrong.

The Galil was developed as a replacement for the FAL. It entered service around the same time the Israelis got their first M16s, during the 73 War resupply we rushed them.

And what really happened? The Galil got pushed out of the limelight by the M16 and M4. IDF currently issues it as a personal defense weapon for guys who hopefully don't need a rifle at all (tank crews, etc). Their shooters carry M16s or M4s. If the Galil was such an improvement one would think that, even if they get rifles from us cheap, they'd give the better combat long gun to their infantry and give the inferior weapon to the guys who ned a PDW.

Or perhaps they do. Having used a real Galil more than most folks who post on this board, and trained a good number of people to use it as well, I can safely say I prefer the M4A1 for various reasons.

The bolt still sucks, it is the only major weapons system that I know of that the operator often carries an additional bolt, to replace the broken one, in the rifle. The existing bolt is simply to weak. The heat from the gas impingement exacerbates that weakness.

Strangely, it "sucks" so much that it's been copied on a number of service rifles developed since the adoption of the M16 . . .

[maniak]

Just want to thank all posters on this thread.
This is my first visit to the High Road and I joined this thread because I've been looking for a semi-automatic .308 for hunting, SHTF and range fun and I was considering the DPMS LR-308 AP4, the RRA LAR and the PTR 91 KFM4.
All three are, broadly speaking, in the same price range, but I was leaning PTR-ish because I've had very good luck with H&K pistols ... and because I had heard of the controversy surrounding the direct-impingement design.
So, while the M-16/M-4 debate may have seemed to some of you to be a bit off topic, it's been, for me, very helpful and informative.
I note that several of you are veterans or active duty military. Thank you for your service, your courage and your sacrifice. (I'm thinking that blogging, with or without smileys, isn't much of an option in countries that do not enjoy freedom of speech, and we have you to thank for this, and much, much more.)
Were it up to me, you'd have more choice in the weapons you carry. I see a purpose in standardizing on ammunition, less so in choice of platform. But I imagine that just isn't practical. As a taxpayer, I'm willing to spring for the best. As a citizen, I'll take your word on what that is. But that's just me
As a civilian, I do have a choice, and having read your excellent postings, I'm going with my original inclination.
While slightly more countries have used the M-16 than the G-3 in their armed forces (73 or so versus about 80, according to Wikipedia), I note that Burkina Faso went with the G-3. So, who you gonna believe, Burkina Faso or Jamaica? Me, I'll go with Burkina Faso every time. (Just kidding. I didn't even know where Burkina Faso was 'til I just now looked it up.)
And as to the original question, I'll agree with those posters who've argued there is no "all-purpose" rifle. For the SHTF: a sturdy and reliable platform (see the numerous recommendations above, my opinion would be uninformed) firing a popular cartridge. For HD: an HK .45 USP-C tricked out with an under-barrel light (this opinion is informed).
Again, thanks for the thoughtful (and thought-provoking) posts.
My $0.03.

[ROMAK IV]

I would vote for an M-1A. 5 round magazines are available, and although not easy to disassemble, the bolt has a lever attached to it where a jam is easier to clear. FAL's Can have this feature, but you'll have to make one yourself or use a bolt carrier from a paratrooper model. A Siaga is similiar though not quite as capable as the average M-1A. I happen to believe a ROMAK III would work for your purpose as well. Don't use cartridges with bullet weights over 180gr. and you should be fine. It is going to be a bit hard to find an M1-A for $1200, they often cast a bit more.