Which Battle Rifle in Theory Has a Longer Service Life?


PDA






Texasred
November 8, 2008, 01:30 PM
Which of the given .308 Rifles, given spare parts and replacing BBLs, would theoretically last the longest?
When I mean theoreutically, I mean how the impact of firing is transmitted to the frame/receiver, parts materials, designs, and durability?

Please no unnecessary criticisms, and I'm not considering ammuntion costs, so don't go shoot back that it would take millions of dollars of ammo to wear so and so out.

As for my choice, it seems the AR-10, or the FAL in second. What do the more experienced think?

1. AR-10
2. M1A/M14
3. G3/CETME
4. FAL
5. Saiga .308
6. Other

If you enjoyed reading about "Which Battle Rifle in Theory Has a Longer Service Life?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
November 8, 2008, 01:35 PM
I don't know if the best, but I'd venture to guess than an FAL built on a "type 1" receiver without lightening cuts would last forever and a day.

Auburn1992
November 8, 2008, 01:38 PM
Why didn't you put the AK up there?

General Geoff
November 8, 2008, 01:38 PM
If receiver longevity is what you're looking for, I would have to give it to the M14/M1A platform. This is assuming equal rate of fire and optimal ammunition for the specified gas system.


Auburn, the Saiga .308 is the AK platform in this contest. He didn't include an AK-47 because that's not .308.

Browning
November 8, 2008, 01:42 PM
I would think something like a Mauser or an Enfield would beat them all since you also have bolt action rifles up there. It's a manual repeater and there's less parts to break as a result. With some of the semi-auto rifles up there one spring goes bad or a pin breaks and that's all she wrote.

Think of how long the Enfield was in service with the British (1888 to the early 1960's) and the Mauser was with the Germans (1871 to 1945). Plus I've heard of people fixing their bolt action surplus rifles with pieces of scrap steel, try that with some of the more finicky semi-autos up there.

General Geoff
November 8, 2008, 01:45 PM
With the addition of bolt actions, I will say without a doubt that just about any bolt action receiver will last forever, especially if the person doing the shooting is slowly and carefully cycling the bolt.

woodybrighton
November 8, 2008, 01:46 PM
2nd an enfield almost unbreakable and few parts to break any self loader is going to be more likely to break more things to go wrong and more rounds fired.
Canandian rangers still use them as still likely to go bang and persuade mr polar bear to go away or drop dead at -I can't believe it gets this cold:evil:

Texasred
November 8, 2008, 02:28 PM
Okay I shouldnt have put the bolt actions on there.
Lets focus on the autoloaders now!

MTMilitiaman
November 8, 2008, 03:20 PM
The last number I heard floating around for the operational service life of a military M14 receiver was 400,000 rounds.

Now I don't know how many FALs or G3s are shooting nearly half a million rounds through the same receiver, but I know that by that point, the war's over, and the cockroaches won.

So of the semi-auto battle rifles, I think the M14 is the winner, possibly by a decisive margin.

It is possible that a bolt action rifle could beat it, but part of me wonders if the service life of a bolt action is actually as superior as some claim it to be. Once we start talking about actual round count, I think things might be a little more even than could be believed.

Texasred
November 8, 2008, 03:38 PM
I know what you mean Militiaman, about bolt actions. Funny comment about the M-14 by the way.

But it seems that the action of the autoloaders would dampen the stress to the receiver by some margin at least. The bolt actions simply take the impact on an almost equal amount of steel and would seem to stretch given hundreds of thousands of rounds.

1 old 0311
November 8, 2008, 03:58 PM
AK's. Look at those used in Third World countries. They were used by Russia, and China till they were beat to death, then sent to Africa, Asia, and South America where they are still going strong.

HorseSoldier
November 8, 2008, 05:48 PM
If receiver longevity is what you're looking for, I would have to give it to the M14/M1A platform. This is assuming equal rate of fire and optimal ammunition for the specified gas system.

As soon as the question goes from only considering mil-spec rifles to being mil-spec+clones the whole question gets more complicated.

A Springfield M1A is not built to USGI M14 specs. Nor are most ARs, most FAL clones, etc. For the actual mil-spec weapons, their longevity is kind of a moot point (as MTMilitiaman pointed out). For some of the clones, however, you could be looking at a fraction of the hundred of thousands of rounds military rifle designs would be rated for.

FMJMIKE
November 8, 2008, 08:00 PM
AK-47 type rifles will last longer..........IMHO

stubbicatt
November 8, 2008, 08:05 PM
Perhaps it is a different design concept with the M14 series. Just like cars of the 40s and 50s, the wearing parts are made to readily serviced and replaced. The durable parts are extremely durable. The M14 receiver should last a very long time.

I know I prefer my G3 clone to an M14, but while the G3 will last a very long time, I don't think that it was designed or built with the thought in mind of rebarreling the receiver when the barrel is shot out. Seems one of those shoot it until it wears out, then salvage the trigger pack and bolt carrier for the next rifle, but toss the barrel/receiver/trunnion assembly away type rifles.

jaholder1971
November 8, 2008, 08:39 PM
I gotta go with about any bolt gun, simply becasue of the lack of moving parts and fewer springs to break.

alemonkey
November 8, 2008, 10:08 PM
There were lee enfields from before WW1 still in service long after WW2, IIRC.

Texasred
November 9, 2008, 11:12 AM
I know once again that the rifles on here will last longer than me in most cases if I lived to be 200 years old.

But this has been a concern of mine seeing as if they were to make a BAN and registration like they have done in CALIFORNIA, then all those people over there are left with the guns they have legal rights too. Correct?

Now these gun for all intensive purposes (if they never lift the ban) will literally end up shot to the point of complete failure. Right? They can still smith their guns and order parts for them.

The guns legal status makes them worth the constant repair and may as well stretch these guns as thin as possible. I imagine in 30 or 40 years from now we may hear about some receiver failures. In this case, the state won't let the citizen buy a replacement lower for their AR or replacement flat for their AK right?

This is why they even have Magazine overhaul kits for sale. Where as us over in the free states take for granted that we can buy 10 or so of our favorites for less than 150$. To our free minds it is never a concern if an insignificant $10 magazine's springs wear out, we just toss it right? Boy are we spoiled compared to our fellow Americans over in the commie states!

It seems that this question has a real purpose given the circumstances. Or am I just being ridiculous now?

The Bushmaster
November 9, 2008, 12:03 PM
M1 Garand...

Blacksmoke
November 9, 2008, 12:10 PM
I am curious why the Garand is not on your list. That has my vote for semi auto. Hard to say which would last longer in the bolt actions. SMLE are pretty damn fine rifles. We would be considering both SMLEs and Garands converted to .308, I guess.

ParaElite
November 9, 2008, 12:27 PM
Fulton Armory has a database of information on the issue of cast or forging on the M14/M1A. The Chicom receivers are highly rated as to dimensions and metalurgy and the heat treatment of the receiver has to be done correctly. If not done correctly or the dimensions are off you will have head space and timing issues.

Pilot
November 9, 2008, 12:41 PM
Mauser K98k bolt action.

paintballdude902
November 9, 2008, 01:50 PM
garand

G17Steve
November 9, 2008, 03:36 PM
The AK is technically not an MBR.

The FAL gets my vote.

Texasred
November 9, 2008, 05:29 PM
I figured the Garand was similar enough to the M-14 series. But sorry I didn't include it. I was also thinking .308, and I know that they make Garands in said caliber but they were never widespread enough to make a big impact.

HorseSoldier
November 9, 2008, 05:36 PM
There were lee enfields from before WW1 still in service long after WW2, IIRC.

And I think the Finns are still using Moisin-Nagant receivers (some built in the 1890s) as the basis for current military sniper rifles.

natescout
November 9, 2008, 06:11 PM
M14 style rifle gets my vote !!

If you enjoyed reading about "Which Battle Rifle in Theory Has a Longer Service Life?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!