.308 Battle Rifle


PDA






7.62mm.ak47
August 5, 2013, 10:28 PM
How do PTR-91s stack up to the H&K-91s? How about DSA FALs? I've checked Falfiles and HKpro but the opinions vary a lot. Does anyone here have personal experience? I've heard DSA's quality has gone downhill recently with QC with their SA58s.

If you enjoyed reading about ".308 Battle Rifle" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
avs11054
August 6, 2013, 12:55 AM
Only have experience with a ptr 91. It is awesome, but personally, I like my ar10 way better

stubbicatt
August 6, 2013, 08:26 AM
I have had good experience with my early, tight chamber, JLD manufactured PTR 91. It shoots very accurately. Mine is one of those which doesn't cycle well with tar sealed ammo.

I understand that the recent GI or standard profile barreled rifles don't have issues with surplus ammunition.

A lot of people like the FAL, I owned a FN FAL back in the 90s, and it was a very nice rifle, I just liked the G3 better. --That is truly a question of personal taste.

briansmithwins
August 6, 2013, 09:13 AM
If your budget will go there check out the FN SCAR17s. Designed for optics, totally ambidexterious, factory free floated barrel and fully adjustable stock.

BSW

bikemutt
August 6, 2013, 10:20 AM
If your budget will go there check out the FN SCAR17s. Designed for optics, totally ambidexterious, factory free floated barrel and fully adjustable stock.

BSW
Agreed.

Other than the reciprocating charging handle (aka thumb whacker), it's about perfect.

DammitBoy
August 6, 2013, 10:31 AM
I'm looking at the Sig Sauer 716 patrol, does anybody have any experience shooting it?

briansmithwins
August 6, 2013, 12:28 PM
Other than the reciprocating charging handle (aka thumb whacker), it's about perfect.

Actually it's the reciprocating CH that makes it even better.

1) Easier to tell what's going on w/o having to look in the ejection port. If I have a stoppage I can see the position of the CH in my peripheral vision. If the CH is all the way back, the bolt is locked open. If it's all the way forward, I have a FTFire, if it's in some whacky intermediate position, I have a FTFeed.
2) To complete a reload all I have to do is nudge the CH slightly rear wards with my left hand, which has just completed stuffing a new mag in the magwell. The CH is a much bigger target and easier to hit with gross motion than the tiny ping pong paddle.
3) The CH is dirt simple. It's a piece of plastic over molded steel that inserts directly into the BCG. It's not a rugged as a AK CH but, if you have to apply force to open the BCG it's much more robust than any non-reciprocating CH.

And the CH is easily flipped to the other side of south paws.

BSW

X-Rap
August 6, 2013, 01:07 PM
I had a G3 clone by Springfield and as far as reliability it was top notch but accuracy compared to my Scout Squad or previous Standard or new M&P 10 there is just no comparison.
I also like the hold open on last shot, and the ergonomics compared to those of the G3. Mags are cheap but overall with regards to the 308 I'm thinking that the AR platform is probably superior to all of them and there is a clear standard that is beginning to emerge.
When that happens things will be even better.

Robert
August 6, 2013, 02:00 PM
I like my FAL a lot but more and more I find myself looking at AR10 style rifles.

briansmithwins
August 6, 2013, 02:47 PM
I'm thinking that the AR platform is probably superior to all of them and there is a clear standard that is beginning to emerge.

What standard is that? Every manufacturer had their own specs with parts and frequently mags not being compatable.

BSW

fireside44
August 6, 2013, 03:21 PM
Ptr-91/CETME mag release location fail.

Mags are cheap but overall with regards to the 308 I'm thinking that the AR platform is probably superior to all of them and there is a clear standard that is beginning to emerge.

Superior for what? Accuracy, probably. Weight, doubtful. Extended field use, no way. Ease of maintenance, sorry. Optics mounting, yep. Sights, yep. Cost, no real advantage.

I'd look for a STG-58, Argentine, or Imbel FAL built from a parts kit on a DSA or Coonan receiver by someone reputable whether it be a smith or a private individual. Check the FALfiles marketplace, some real deals go through there at times.

X-Rap
August 6, 2013, 03:34 PM
What standard is that? Every manufacturer had their own specs with parts and frequently mags not being compatable.


That's my point, I think there is a pattern that is becoming prevalent at least with magazine interchangeability and I think the uppers are compatible as well, it seems the SR25/DPMS and now the S&W excluding the ambi features. Compatibility with PMags will be a driving force in the future development of the the 308 AR IMO.
I am fairly new to the 308 AR's but the mag availability, cost and quality were a deciding factor.

X-Rap
August 6, 2013, 03:48 PM
Yes, accuracy
probably equal at least and possibly less weight
extended field use? that's to be determined there are some in use now that will aid in that judgement
ease of maintenance? what other 308 out there is rebuild able in the field by those with simple knowledge of tools and the system?
Optics, sights, yep
Having shot the G3 and FAL I will give the ergonomics to the AR as well, that is quite subjective but given the number of AR15/M16 users in America today the transition to the larger platform will be much simpler than that of the other two.
I know it is blasphemous but the M14/M1A isn't even in the same league using the criteria above.
How the larger platform will hold up over time is an unknown but it seems to be beefed up in the right places and considering the success and longevity of it's little brother I don't doubt it to do well on the range, in the hunting fields and on the battlefield.

7.62mm.ak47
August 6, 2013, 07:48 PM
Thanks for the replies. I'm only looking at getting a G3 clone or FAL at the moment though. So would getting a PTR be just about the same construction-wise as an HK91? I don't want to spend over $1k and have a subpar rifle I guess.

briansmithwins
August 7, 2013, 02:30 AM
$1000 is a pretty tight budget for a self loading 7.62 NATO rifle that's halfway decent.

Why 7.62 NATO? What are you planning on doing with the rifle?

Another factor is magazines and ammo. Price both before you commit.

BSW

splithoof
August 7, 2013, 02:43 AM
As someone who has used the G3/91 format and likes it, I have to acknowledge that it is outdated, and more ergonomic designs exist. The FN SCAR comes to mind. From a manufacturing standpoint, the HK pattern is the closest thing to a disposable rifle I have used with the exception of the AK platform. Both those designs were made to be ultra cheap to produce. That ultra cheap aspect likely contributes to reliability.

leadcounsel
August 7, 2013, 03:05 AM
This subject is quite common here.

I find the FAL to be far superior to the PTR91 in nearly every way except the cheap mags for the PTR91.

orangeninja
August 7, 2013, 10:31 AM
The G3/91 design can be scoped or have optics mounted (if you don't cheap out) if you do something like get an HK claw, you have one that goes on and off without losing zero (which is super nice).

Other benefits:

The mags are cheap...super cheap. In fact I don't know of any magazines for a battle rifle that are cheaper.

It has AK47 like reliability (a rare few tight chamber ones the exceptions).

Mine (which is a JLD type) is capable of 1 MOA or less with the appropriate ammo.

It will eat cheap Wolf ammo all day long.

Parts for it are readily available, cheap, and easy to work with.

It's a simple, battle proven design that hasn't changed much since inception.

The ARs? With the exception of accuracy and a removable scope, lose on all of the above points (but ARs have slightly better ergonomics, though you will quickly adjust to the G3 ergos and it becomes a non-issue. It’s slightly nose heavy…like an AR that’s been “pimped”.

I disagree that the design is obsolete any more than a AR15 or AK47 to say nothing of the M1A (which is what I originally was in the market for before stumbling upon this).

Anyhow YMMV but I have been intrigued by the no nonsense, barebones, GI PTR recently with a 16 inch barrel (mine is 18).

FuzzyBunny
August 7, 2013, 10:46 AM
I have HKs but I hear the newer 12 flute PTR rifles are nice too. My HKs were passed down to me so, yea for me! If I had to buy one in 7.65x51 I think I would go with a PTR, BUT I have not shot the scars.

Find what you like and go with it and buy spare springs and such now as they are cheaper now than later. Some hate the 91 format and others love it so pick the one you can shoot the best with.

Avoid the .223 HK93 as mags are expensive as heck when you can find them.

Oh, get a HK or lula mag loader if you get a PTR or any 308.

Happy hunting

Arizona_Mike
August 7, 2013, 03:15 PM
I vote for the S&W M&P10. Love mine.

Mike

7.62mm.ak47
August 7, 2013, 11:54 PM
Well I guess my budget would be like $1300 which would cover a PTR and some FALS. So is the PTR the same quality wise as the H&K? How do the SA58s compare to other FALs?

Willie Sutton
August 8, 2013, 12:07 AM
Based on currently owning both HK91's and a PTR, they are interchangable as far as quality, fit, and finish are concerned. They are a hard recoiling, too short in the butt-length, hard on brass, dead-nuts reliable rifle of adequate but not superlative accuracy. They are "nothing special", just another stamped sheet metal rifle. They were designed to be the cheapest way to manufacture a full sized cartridge rifle, as an industrial object for production. They are great at what they do, and I would take either with equal alacrity if I needed to rely on a rifle of this design. Pick the least expensive one of the two, meaning that you can leave the HK built ones for the collectors and fan-boys.

FAL's come in 2 flavors: Those assembled in a FN or licensed by FN factory ab-initio, and those put together by "Bubba on his own without FN technical support", which can range from literally Bubba in his garage to a very well established specialy botique shop who specializes in FAL's. Those "kit guns" can be built from well worn surplus parts, or from new parts, or from a mix of parts. Know what? With very few exceptions, as shooters... they are all more or less the same. They will all likely be reliable, rugged, durable rifles that are quite frankly a LOT more pleasant to shoot than a HK design.

All in all the FAL is going to be a lot softer shooting rifle, with far better ergonomics.


To frame my opinion, I have had HK91's since about 1979, and I bought my first FAL back when Browning imported them from Belgium. I have a *real* AR-10 as well, one of the Dutch manufactured, "Real" Armalite Licensed ones with the cocking ring under the carry handle. I do like it a lot... far better than the so-called "AR-10's" that are not even close, but are rather just scaled up AR-15's. To round it out, I have M1A's, original Beretta BM-59's, and Garands, both original length and "Tanker", as well as a collection of FN-49's and other "interesting" rifles, such as one of the new-build FG-42's. All in all... for a full size cartridge rifle... the FAL is the best of the pack. The BM-59 is *lovely* but try getting one... and I hate to say it, but the FG-42 is so far ahead of any of the others that it absolutely blows my mind that these were not put into series production post-war for use right up to today.



FAL is a beautiful heavy-metal classic. You can't really go wrong with any of them. Pick one and enjoy.

G-3 (HK91, etc) is a stamped el-cheapo dispose-a-rifle, to be harshly truthful. They work great. But..


You choose.



Willie


.

C-grunt
August 8, 2013, 12:40 AM
My favorite of all the old battle rifles has been the FAL and the M14/M1A. If I had to choose between them it would be the FAL.

However now I would choose the SCAR hands down. Having shot a real Mk17 SCAR with the 13.x inch barrel and auto switch, I am seriously downing the Koolaide. It is a really really good battle rifle.

MachIVshooter
August 8, 2013, 02:54 AM
AR pattern is still king of the hill in my book. Ergonomics, modularity, accuracy.

FAL is a close second, but reloads are about a zillion times slower.

G3 pattern is a decent weapon, but the ergos fail compared to others, they are the most abusive recoil-wise, and they destroy brass.

M1A is a good rifle, but suffers from the same slow reloads as the FAL.

I am NOT a fan of the SCAR. I would take a decent rendering of the aforementioned rifles over the 17 every day and twice on Sunday.

No experience yet with the RFB, but I think it is a promising design.

I have an Armalite AR-10A2 carbine and a DSA para carbine, as well as a C91. All three are superbly reliable. The AR-10 has not had a single hiccup since I started using gen II mags, and it is about a 1.3 MOA rifle (5 shot 100 yard groups). The FAL runs 100% with good mags, is pretty gentle, and runs about 1.75 MOA. The C91 has also had but a few hiccups, and has produced groups as small as .5 MOA, but averages about 1.5-2.0. It is still my least favorite, on account of ergonomics and recoil impulse.

http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n117/Hunter2506/FALAR-10_zps4a292e95.jpg (http://s110.photobucket.com/user/Hunter2506/media/FALAR-10_zps4a292e95.jpg.html)

A later pic of the FAL (same today, except I added a cheek pad)

http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n117/Hunter2506/FAL_zps33e9aab1.jpg (http://s110.photobucket.com/user/Hunter2506/media/FAL_zps33e9aab1.jpg.html)


http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n117/Hunter2506/101_1563_zps665e65a0.jpg (http://s110.photobucket.com/user/Hunter2506/media/101_1563_zps665e65a0.jpg.html)

I'd be hard pressed deciding between the AR-10 and FAL if I could only keep one, but the AR-10 would win out (just barely). I love the FAL, but the AR-10 is a little more accurate, a little softer shooting, and has superior controls placement & manipulation.

MistWolf
August 8, 2013, 03:26 AM
Mag changes aren't any slower with a FAL than they are with an AR. Hit the FAL mag release with the trigger finger and the mag falls free. The controls of the AR AR are a little easier to use and the AR is also easier to mount an optic.

As far as recoil goes, my Para is much softer shooting than my M&P-10 but I suspect the Battlecomp compensater has much to do with that
http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n289/SgtSongDog/Liberty/DSC_0037_zpsefd19adc.jpg

MachIVshooter
August 8, 2013, 03:42 AM
Mag changes aren't any slower with a FAL than they are with an AR. Hit the FAL mag release with the trigger finger and the mag falls free.

Yeah, assuming you don't jam your finger into the narrow steel frame right there. I practiced, thought I had it down, then went to do a little competition with some friends and wound up with a VERY sore trigger finger.

And there is simply no way to release the bolt on an FAL faster than an AR. None.

As I said, I really like my FAL. It's a superb rifle, and I would trust it to do anything I could ask of a battle rifle. Still, the AR is just a little better. The FAL is a sexier rifle, but it ain't about looks in this arena (not to me, anyway)

1006
August 8, 2013, 08:18 AM
I like the ptr-91. I don't reload so the brass is a non issue. The accuracy and reliability are top notch. I also like AR platform rifles, just need a little more cleaning.

bnolsen
August 8, 2013, 01:12 PM
I have a cetme, an early ptr91 and an early saiga 308.

In the "old days" i bought a ton of 75 cent aluminum mags, shot that nasty indian surplus (which I always inspected very closely) out of the cetme and dressed up the ptr91 quite nicely. I really dislike cleaning these rifles. I jumped on this platform after shooting someone's recently retired g3 sniper duty rifle in the mountains. And back then these were quite cheap.

I pistol grip converted the saiga 308 (trigger, etc). I really really like this rifle for its durability, reliability and ease of maintanance but not so much for the mag price (looks like availability is now decent, though). Definitely a great down and dirty rifle. And at the time very cheap as well.

I have to admit the keltec rfb looks very interesting to me. If they simplify the gas system adjustment, and ammo was cheap and available and I could find a way to get magazines I would very seriously consider purchasing.

IMHO the ar15 platform itself has always been very fundamentally flawed. With the resurgence of 7.62x51 its a very good time to move over to a better gas system.

MistWolf
August 8, 2013, 05:14 PM
...IMHO the ar15 platform itself has always been very fundamentally flawed. With the resurgence of 7.62x51 its a very good time to move over to a better gas system.

Gave me the best laugh I've gotten all week!

bnolsen
August 8, 2013, 05:54 PM
flame wars can be pretty fun (or not) but denying that blasting waste directly into the action instead of away from it like the ar15 does...well...

FN mags aren't cheap either but definitely cheaper than saiga mags. (referring to keltec rfb).
Looks like the robarm xcr-m uses a pretty common magazine as well.
quick search shows g3 mags are still way cheap in comparison. kind of irrelevant if you can't find the ammo to run through it though.

Btw as per the OP I forgot to mention that I think the ptr91 I have is about 80% or so the weapon that the G3 I shot was. I believe the guy who had the rifle paid 5000-6000USD but it included the very nice leopuld scope, etc on it. I got my ptr91 for under 600USD at the time. The cetme? garbage, but it shoots and was under less than 300USD (I don't recall exactly what I paid).

Some notables: The G3 ran very very very smoothly, charging handle was effortless, etc. But I'm sure it had plenty of love put into as well since it was a service weapon.

Lj1941
August 8, 2013, 06:15 PM
All I need or want is my M 14/ M 1A.

Don357
August 8, 2013, 07:15 PM
I had a CETME (which is the predecessor to the HK and PTR)and a PSL and would prefer either over an AR10 in the reliability category, however, the AR platform wins in the accuracy department. Can't personally speak to either for the FAL, but it has lasted a long time in military use.

fireside44
August 8, 2013, 09:09 PM
All the +1's for the AR are amusing. In .308/7.62x51 it was an utter failure as a battle rifle. It's very accurate-but battle rifles don't need precision accuracy. It has great ergonomics-probably it's greatest strength in terms of battle rifles though marginally better than several of it's competitors. Fast mag reloads-a few thousandths of a second is a non-issue. It's modular-unnecessary in a battle rifle. Lastly, it is the least reliable of any commonly fielded battle rifle, probably the most essential feature one would look for in a 7.62x51 fighting weapon.

To answer the OP's question there is no way I'd purchase a DSA SA58 over a good quality built parts kit on a DSA or Coonan receiver. I think generally you will be fine but I think those who were originally licensed to produce a variant for widespread combat use have turned out a weapon of superior quality that DSA has not been able to touch for some time, if ever.

krupparms
August 8, 2013, 11:02 PM
I have shot almost all the Firearms mentioned, but not all. I went with the DSA /FAL. It works well, is accurate & reliable. I am happy with it! :)

MachIVshooter
August 8, 2013, 11:08 PM
In .308/7.62x51 it was an utter failure as a battle rifle.

That was not because the weapon was flawed, but because a full auto 7.62 NATO rifle weighing only 7 pounds is virtually uncontrollable. Even the M14 was more than most GIs could handle.

Lastly, it is the least reliable of any commonly fielded battle rifle, probably the most essential feature one would look for in a 7.62x51 fighting weapon.

It was never exactly "commonly fielded", and I would like to see your source for the unreliable claim. My experience has been vastly different.

valnar
August 9, 2013, 12:22 PM
With how much I love my PWS MK116, I'd have no hesitation recommending its bigger brother, the MK216. It clicks all the check boxes I'd want in a .308

Trent
August 9, 2013, 01:26 PM
That was not because the weapon was flawed, but because a full auto 7.62 NATO rifle weighing only 7 pounds is virtually uncontrollable.


Some would say the same about a 9 pound battle rifle (G3A3).

But truth is, it's a matter of training and "commitment."

Here's me, shooting one.
6xC7Wokz36I

Here's "random internet guy" (picked a random G3 full auto video)
0fDF0f-dOdA

Note the difference in ability to handle the recoil...

To shoot ANY 7.62 battle rifle effectively on full auto, you must:

A) Have a stable shooting posture (front leg forward and bent)
B) Lean in to the recoil (before you even pull the trigger)
C) Tighten your abs! (situps help. Lots, and lots of sit-ups)
D) When the bullet hose starts, push forward against the recoil with your upper body.

silicosys4
August 9, 2013, 01:47 PM
That was not because the weapon was flawed, but because a full auto 7.62 NATO rifle weighing only 7 pounds is virtually uncontrollable. Even the M14 was more than most GIs could handle.



It was never exactly "commonly fielded", and I would like to see your source for the unreliable claim. My experience has been vastly different.

Chris Kyle speaks of his experience with the shortcomings of one particular AR-10 variant in his book. The way he described, they were actually a pretty commonly available weapon amongst designated marksmen, and pretty commonly avoided. He was not impressed with its reliability and cited problems with the dust cover as the main source of his grief.
The fact that they were an issued weapon that had advantages to the bolt guns on paper, yet was rarely used or fielded by the soldiers that had them as an option says a lot to me.

MachIVshooter
August 9, 2013, 02:11 PM
Some would say the same about a 9 pound battle rifle (G3A3).

But truth is, it's a matter of training and "commitment."

I don't disagree, and certainly there are people who can handle the weapons. But the average infantryman ends up just spraying bullets everywhere. Heavier load + less ammo + lower hit probability = reduced effectiveness.

Chris Kyle speaks of his experience with the shortcomings of one particular AR-10 variant in his book. The way he described, they were actually a pretty commonly available weapon amongst designated marksmen, and pretty commonly avoided. He was not impressed with its reliability and cited problems with the dust cover as the main source of his grief.
The fact that they were an issued weapon that had advantages to the bolt guns on paper, yet was rarely used or fielded by the soldiers that had them as an option says a lot to me.

Lumping the AR-10 select fire battle rifle and the SASS into the same category just because of platform similarity is disingenuous. The only thing those rifles have in common is chambering and basic operating system. They are not manufactured by the same companies, they are not built to the same specs and tolerances, and they do not function in the same role. One would not want to fight in the trenches with a SASS rifle anymore than one would want to attempt picking off HVTs at 1,000 meters with a standard spec AR-10.

I also find the "commonly available" claim kind of interesting, since the SASS was just adopted in 2008, and Kyle was discharged in 2009.

silicosys4
August 9, 2013, 04:04 PM
Perhaps you might want to read his book. He has real experiences with an ar-10 platform and didn't like it. The argument that you are making, that there are many individual AR-10 designs, some of which are better than others, none of which are cross compatible with other designs and manufacturers, and was never extensively fielded, is not a desired virtue of a battle rifle

You speak of your experiences with the ar-10 rifle...which design? Combat environment? What are the credentials that allow you to dismiss Chris Kyle's statements to the point of calling him untruthful or insinuating he fabricated his information?

More info is needed for so flippant a claim

goon
August 9, 2013, 10:36 PM
I have a lot of experience with the FAL and little with a few others.
The FAL, when properly built, is a superlative rifle. They're hard-hitting, as reliable as a hammer, and just a can of pure whoop-a$$ disguised as a rifle. The adjustable gas system allows the rifle to be tuned to virtually any ammuntion that will feed and extract, and in so doing you save both your shoulder and the rifle from wear. I never had accuracy complaints from the FAL either, but it's not a target rifle.

The HK style rifles and their fluted chambers do beat the hell out of brass, but the brass also doesn't look pretty after a FAL chews it up and spits it out. It can be reused, but it ain't gonna be pretty. But that's true of pretty much any semi-auto rifle.

At the end of the day, if I were starting out today, I don't think I'd buy any .308 semi-auto rifle. I'd go with a good bolt-action .308 with a scope and an AR-15 for my semi-auto needs instead.
I love the FAL design and it was good to be, but that's how I feel these days.

I think in the end, it's going to be about your personal tastes. You should try to shoot a few 7.62x51's and see what you like best before you buy anything.

MachIVshooter
August 10, 2013, 02:28 AM
Perhaps you might want to read his book. He has real experiences with an ar-10 platform and didn't like it. The argument that you are making, that there are many individual AR-10 designs, some of which are better than others, none of which are cross compatible with other designs and manufacturers, and was never extensively fielded, is not a desired virtue of a battle rifle

You speak of your experiences with the ar-10 rifle...which design? Combat environment? What are the credentials that allow you to dismiss Chris Kyle's statements to the point of calling him untruthful or insinuating he fabricated his information?

More info is needed for so flippant a claim

Chris Kyle was certainly entitled to his opinion. The claim I am skeptical about is yours:

they were actually a pretty commonly available weapon amongst designated marksmen, and pretty commonly avoided

How "commonly available" are we to believe a rifle was in the theatre of combat within a year of it's adoption? You're the one stating that they were commonly available and commonly avoided, so do tell, what percentage of DMs had the option to field the M110, and what percentage of that group declined, citing faults with the rifle as a reason? Again, it's your claim, so you back it up.

I also don't know how you extrapolate that I "dismiss Chris Kyle's statements to the point of calling him untruthful or insinuating he fabricated his information" from my one-line sentence that reads "I also find the "commonly available" claim kind of interesting, since the SASS was just adopted in 2008, and Kyle was discharged in 2009."

Remember, I have not made any claims, flippant or otherwise. I've merely pointed out that I am skeptical of something you stated, and that the SASS Kyle fielded is NOT the same rifle that went into combat as a battle rifle a half century ago. I don't need any credentials to back any of this up; one is skepticism, the other is fact.

As for my personal experience, it has mostly been with Armalites, with some DPMS and Stoner rifles mixed in. And no, certainly not in combat. I also have zero personal experience with the original FA AR-10.

NWCP
August 10, 2013, 05:12 AM
I really enjoy my HK91. It's been reliable rifle since I put the first round down the barrel. I wouldn't hesitate using it as a battle rifle. It eats any and all .308 and 7.62 that I've fed it.

bozzman3
August 10, 2013, 09:05 PM
I am the only crazy one here?I own the PTR,M1A,and 2 FALS.I love shooting them all.I only have to choose which one I want to shoot that day or shoot em all!!!!

barnbwt
August 10, 2013, 09:18 PM
Since someone(s) mentioned the RFB with no protests, that qualifies the thread for my recommendation of the FNAR.

You can still get them and a couple mags for under 1100$, and have a 1MOA rifle set up for railed glass that takes 5,10, and 20 round mags. "Not battle proven" and all that mess, but who really cares? And who's shooting mud and sandwiches through their +1000$ guns, anyhow :D? Other than bore/chamber cleaning, full service is only needed every 1000 rounds or so.

Seriously, it's a pretty dang hard-to-beat deal, unless you're hung up on getting a military pattern, especially if you compare it to stuff like CETME's and basic FALs. Mags are expensive, but the rifle is less so, and either pale in comparison to the ammo ;)

As a runner up, I'll recommend an FN49 in 308. My 30-06 model is awesome; way cooler than a FAL, and with detachable box mags like the 308 it would have slightly more practicality, to boot. This forerunner to the FAL shares a similar operating sytem, but is gussied up more like a Garand and has far better fit and finish than any of either I've seen.

TCB

Willie Sutton
August 10, 2013, 09:41 PM
"As a runner up, I'll recommend an FN49 in 308"


Except there is no such animal...

7x57, 7.62x63, and 7.92x57 are your choices. Better known as 7mm Mauser, .30-06, and 8mm Mauser....

Have several of each.

The FN-49's box magazine, while "removable for maintenance" is not really removable... it's NOT something that you can change rapidly in the field. Ever see where the feed lips are in a FN-49? Hint: They are not part of the magazine... The FN-49, which I love, "just missed" being a great rifle. Had it been issued in 7.62x51, and had it been issued with a truly removable box magazine, it would have been neck and neck with the M-14 as a great "Gen-2" semi auto battle rifle (using the Garand, Tokarev, and G-43 as examples of Gen-1)



"I really enjoy my HK91. It's been reliable rifle since I put the first round down the barrel. I wouldn't hesitate using it as a battle rifle. It eats any and all .308 and 7.62 that I've fed it"

I don't think that anyone would argue with the 91's strong points of extreme reliability, or general utility. It's just harder kicking and far less comfortable to shoot than a FAL, with truly inferior ergonomics.

When a G3 meets a FAL it's a case of "one good design meets an even better design".



Willie

.

Arp32
August 10, 2013, 10:06 PM
The 308 FN49 with the detachable magazine referenced earlier is probably the Argentine Navy variant, if I recall correctly.

It's been on my "buy if seen" list for quite a while.

fireside44
August 10, 2013, 10:30 PM
Except there is no such animal..

As Arp said, the Argentine Navy model was a detachable magazine in 7.62x51. I recall back in the good ol' days they went for $129 or something through SOG, lol.

I don't think they just missed being great rifles at all. They have superior sights to a standard metric FAL, are very reliable, and reasonably accurate. Quality is right there to nearly any other competitor out there if not better. A true rolls royce battle rifle.

barnbwt
August 11, 2013, 02:04 AM
Yup, if anything, the FN49 missed the war, rather than a design format. You have to remember it was developing before the start of the war, unlike the postwar guns we stack it against. It was far superior to the other main battle rifles of the era, but its production was delayed when the designers fled the German advance. Our Garands nearly went up against those things, and early in the war, too:uhoh:

After the war, it was very non competitive, the order of the day being cheap fast sheet metal guns. The 49 was built using much older and more expensive methodologies, and no rebuilding NATO nation could pay for it, so the simplified and modernized FAL was developed.

But a 308 (7.62 NATO, whatever; the gas system's adjustable) Argentine modified model would be a very solid performer, and look doing it.

TCB

fireside44
August 11, 2013, 08:46 AM
After the war, it was very non competitive, the order of the day being cheap fast sheet metal guns. The 49 was built using much older and more expensive methodologies, and no rebuilding NATO nation could pay for it, so the simplified and modernized FAL was developed.

+1.

In my opinion it is the finest autoloading rifle FN has ever produced construction wise.

If you enjoyed reading about ".308 Battle Rifle" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!