[dev_null]

Been doing some reading on the .308, including "Fred" and Royce ("Boston T. Party"), among others.

If you were looking for a .308 rifle for defense, hunting, and general SHTF, which would you prefer, based on accuracy, reliability, weight, cost (rifle, accessories, mags, etc.), and so on?

- 0 -

[hillbilly]

The simple answer to your poll, at least the first three seletions is YES!

hillbilly

[Pinned&Recessed]

While the FAL has a huge following and is a spectacular rifle with CHEAP mags, there is a certain mystical allure every time I pick up an M1A/M14 that I don't get from any other rifle.

Despite it's weight, pricey mags and difficulty in stripping compared to the FAL, I gotta say the M1A/M14.

[ducktapehero]

Garand. En bloc's are a hell of a lot cheaper to stock up on than ANY magazine.

[Kurt]

Make mine a FAL, with no runner-up even close.

M1A's are only a distant second choice. I've had several and they feel great, and they ARE sweet shooters. I fear that many base their thoughts about this gun on those factors. However, most new guns will be a SA cast receiver model, and that alone isn't good for my long term peace of mind. Right behind that, there's that disassembly under field conditions thing.

Make mine a FAL, for a LOT less to worry about.

[30Cal]

Haven't seen (or even heard of) a worn out or failed cast M1A receiver.

I'd go with the M1 though--cheaper, cheaper parts, clips are essentially free. Both will run forever (500rds is a breeze) without a lot of fuss. Accurate, great sights and trigger.

[Kurt]

The most recent example of problems with receiver stretch in cast M1A's were outlined in a book by one of the authors mentioned above. IIRC, it was a first hand experience situation, with his very own gun. I believe the book was called The Gun Bible, or something very similiar. Thanks.

edited to add....

I just contacted my friend who has that book. It’s “Boston’s Gun Bible” (2002 revised edition). Under a section on investment cast M1A receivers he writes……

”As I mentioned earlier, my Springfield Armory “Tanker” Garand in .308 developed sufficient receiver stretch (i.e., about 0.005”) to create failures-to-fire. It’s a terminal condition. Re-barreling (with a short cut chamber) would have merely bought the rifle a few more thousand rounds.”

This has to be sobering to anyone banking on such a gun.

Please excuse my small O/T

[Redlg155]

I'd pick the FAL with the M1A coming up a close second.

I'm curious, does anyone have any experience with a full auto .308 build on the AR platform? I wonder how well they would fare when subjected to full auto fire.

I really like the option of being able to adjust the gas system on the FAL. That is definitely a good point when you consider all of the foreign ammo coming in these days. One day it is South African, the next day it is Australian. Since a lot of this isn't NATO spec, you can't always be assured of the velocity.

Good Shooting
Red

[30Cal]

I just contacted my friend who has that book. It’s “Boston’s Gun Bible” (2002 revised edition). Under a section on investment cast M1A receivers he writes…”As I mentioned earlier, my Springfield Armory “Tanker” Garand in .308 developed sufficient receiver stretch (i.e., about 0.005”) to create failures-to-fire.…

I think those were the Lithgow receivers. SA Inc last sold a tanker model Garand in the 1970's, I think. Usually, troubles like that in M1/M14 clones, where headspace gets long really fast, are due to problems in the locking recesses (insufficient contact between the bolt and receiver locking lugs) which is more a dimensional problem than a material problem.

The forged chinese M14 receivers frequently have that issue.

Ty

[standingbear]

fal..reason being cost and ease of replacing worn parts.I like the M1A and although its a very good weapon,its just too expensive.

[Black Snowman]

FAL for me, until I messed up a reload and blew the gun up :uhoh:
Looking to repair or replace it. Can't decied if I want to invest money in the FrankenFAL, get a nicer FAL, or to get the new Bushmaster .308.

If I get an M1 it will be a CMP for a shooter with history more than for "serious" work. No real interest in a new M1A due to the cost of rifle and mags + more limitations on powders used in reloading.

[Harry Tuttle]

Kalashnikov
http://www.robarm.com/RA_vepr_308.html

[Chris Rhines]

I would take a properly built AR10 over anything else.

Accuracy - AR10 is the winner by a mile, MOA groups out of the box are common. M1A is second, FAL is a distant third.

Reliability - AR10s have an undeserved rep for poor reliability - a properly built AR10 will go thousands of rounds without mechanical problems - but they still have no forward assist (fixable) and that silly plunger ejector. The FAL has lots of moving parts, semi-cheesy magazines, and a gas regulator that I've learned to distrust. The M1A is built like a tank, but the external op-rod is a potential failure point. The reciever stretch on the cast M1 recievers is also a very real problem.

I'd give the M1A the nod for reliability, followed by the AR and FAL. But a properly built example of any of them will go under 1 malf per thousand rounds, which is about as good as a semi-auto rifle can do.

Weight - Tie between the AR10 and the M1A (depending on your exact format.) The FAL is about a pound heavier than either.

Cost - Not a consideration. Decide which one you want, then save until you get it.

The cheap FAL mags are nice, but the FAL mags are also the least well built of the three.

For accessories, the AR10 wins on variety alone. It's the only rifle of the three that has available aftermarket night sights, which is a big plus in my book. It also has far and away the best scope mounting system.

You didn't mention ergonomics, which is very important (and also very personal.) I dislike the M1A's handling, and very much like the AR10s. The FAL is...okay. It has some things I like, and some things I don't.

- Chris






-

[varoadking]

Garand, man...nothin' like the Garand...

[ducktapehero]

BAM BAM BAM BAM BAM BAM BAM BAM PING!!!!!!!!

[shoobe01]

FAL. A lot. Getting way big into acoptions, and more of them are actual military issue than for any other gun. I mean, the thing was issued in 5-zillion countries, so I can think of 5 totally different kinds of rear sights that are readily available surplus (often in new condition), plus the several others that are made new in the US. Accessories less so, but I look down on RIS's and such for the most part anyway.

Parts replacement is a breeze. I probably have 30% of a FAL in cheezy or broken parts from converting and "idealizing" my Century into a really sweet gun. A large variety of stocks even.

Trigger not bad, but can be gotten better on other guns. You will pay for it, but there it is. I do not regret my trigger. DSA is the only one with a really good one I know of.

Much like AR-15s, mags are variable. I have finally determined that two of mine are a lost cause. They run 100%, but are too tight to change easily. They are SO cheap I could give a crap. Get 40, keep the ones you want. Toss the rest or keep them for a rainy-day filing project. You can also easily just look for blue-follower original belgians or whatever and pay the price for quality and condtion. Same story for G3/Cetmes. They used to be unavailable, expensive and always kick-ass quality. Now there are scads of variable quality and condition mags.

Accuracy can certainly be gotten, and not with a lot of effort. More like luck, actually. Its a battle rifle. Mine is not free-floated or any such accuracy-is-all B.S. and is sub-2moa (with surplus ammo, and no rest) at 300 yds. If I need accuracy better than that it gets my PSS.

Ergonomics by far the FAL, but the rifle-stocked M14 has its points. Both are stock dependent. There is bad wood and cheezy plastic for the M14; make sure you get one that's not too large or small (around) for you, also. I liked my FAL but love it now that I have the Tapco SAW clone stuff. Just fits me better. Never tried the X-series DSA stuff. And I like the feel of the Paras, but have never fired one.

[Ian]

Enough of the important factors include personal taste that I don't think there can be any objective "best." My choice is the tanker Garand.

Mine shoots about 2 MOA, which is to my mind sufficient, and much better than I can yet shoot. In addition, surplus ammo can't do too much better in the best of guns.

The action isn't perfect, but proved itself sufficiently in WWII and Korea for my satisfaction. After two teething malfs, mine has functioned perfectly for me.

It is shorter and lighter than any of the alternatives, but not so light as to have intolerable recoil (mine is .308, FWIW).

The en-bloc clips are lighter and more convenient to carry than large magazines, and their use bypasses a number of potential semi-auto malfunctions.

With an Italian pistol-grip stock, the ergonomics are as good or better for me than any other contender (I'm a lefty).

It has excellent sights and a very good trigger (better or potentially better than all but the AR-10).

It carries its own cleaning kit in the stock.

It has a WWII forged receiver, which will not stretch as newer cast ones can.

The low magazine capacity, difficulty of scoping, and somewhat open receiver are weaknesses I can live with.

FWIW, I did a full-fledged range report on my tanker, which is posted here. (http://www.clairewolfe.com/wolfesblog/00000866.html)

[Onmilo]

I will choose a G3 or one of the variants for an AK reliable, FAL comfortable, sights nearly as good as an M14, excellent detachable box magazines all around main battle rifle.
If rebuild depots were available to maintain the rifle on a regular basis, it could last nearly forever.
Second choice, M14.

[Mannlicher]

I have found nothing to complain about with my M1A Springfield. I am sticking with it.

[DMK]

I still have yet to find the "perfect" MBR. I love my FAL for it's ergonomics, low cost and AK like reliability/robustness. Unfortunately, it's heavy and although it's accurate enough, it's no tack driver. My Garand is a tack driver, but I put a lot of money into it getting it rebuilt with a new .308 barrel. It was much less accurate than the FAL when I got it from CMP.

I think I'd really like one of those Super Veprs (http://www.robarm.com/RA_vepr_super.htm).

For accessories, the AR10 wins on variety alone. It's the only rifle of the three that has available aftermarket night sights, which is a big plus in my book. Chris, DSA sells tritium night sights (http://www.dsarms.com/item-detail.cfm?ID=SA58NSF&storeid=1&image=falnitesite.gif) for the FAL.

[4v50 Gary]

AR type action. Fewer moving parts & lighter than FN-FAL. Easier to care for than the M-14.

[Lord Bodak]

I'm trying to decide on a .308 rifle. I like the CETME/G3 but there are quality issues with Century. Not a big fan of ARs, and not really the FAL either. Really love the look of the M1A but they are BIG rifles. What does everybody think of the M1A Scout and SOCOM? I'd like something a bit shorter than my SKS, and they fit the bill. Expensive though...

[Roadkill Coyote]

No aftermarket night sights for an FAL, you say?

The good folks over at DSA sell 'em (http://www.dsarms.com/item-detail.cfm?ID=SA58NSF&storeid=1&image=falnitesite.gif)

in addition to all kinds of other cool stuff...

[bernie]

My vote would either be for a G3 or an M1 Rifle. All being equal, unless you just really want a 20 round mag, go for the M1, the reloads are quick, and it is an accurate and reliable arm.

[Warner]

I want my MBR to last a long time, and hold up (without reservations) for the possibility of shooting mega rounds through it. The FAL is the clear choice due to the receiver materials used in both the AR10 and M1A guns.

[jimmyp50]

I had a preban springfield FAL, the gun shot 2-3 inches at 100 yds using among other things portuguese mild steel ammunition, it featured a chrome barrel and bore, and was completely reliable. I traded it for a new hunting rifle but am going to replace it with something else. I liked it but it was very long, heavy, unwieldy, and not amenable to optics attachment. Now at this point what ever that something else is (M14,AR) will have a chrome lined bore and chamber. Hunting in the rain, variablity in surplus ammunition have convinced me that a rifle of this nature should have a chrome bore and chamber. If you want to shoot matches with your gun, that is another story, 2-3 inches at 100, bang all the time, less cleaning especially when you cannot clean, and no worry with regards to bore rust/corrosion are what I am willing to pay my money for in this type of gun. For where I live where moisture is a bigger problem than dust, the AR type might make the most sense. I am waiting for the bushmaster 308 to be released with a chrome bore/chamber. If I want to shoot off a bench for groups I have a bolt action. jimmyp