Pixsurguy
Member
Battle Rifle
I've been lucky/unlucky; in that I've had one of every one of the guns you guys have been talking about. I HAD a PTR, a Saiga, a CETME, a milled AK47, and HAVE an M1 Garand, an M1A, and a FAL.
The first four were stolen in a burglary in 11/04, along with a 16" FAL and a number of hand guns.
I replaced the FAL with a 20 inch, but did not replace the others.
Anyway, i'm in a good position to speak to the high and low points of each.
Right off the bat though, have to admit that I was not aware of the recoil reduction on the newer PTR rifles. My experience with my PTR (a 2003 version) was that it was a shoulder bruiser from the bench, which pretty much amazed me, since my CETME did not do that at all and I've NEVER been particularly sensitive to recoil even in much more powerful rifles.
PTR - loved the good peep sights; the functionality, the pistol grip, the tough and apparently durable finish, the inexpensive and readily available magazines.
I did NOT like the fluted chamber because it beat hell out of brass and I reload. Also, it was the single dirtiest rifle I've ever had. Shoot a couple of hundred rounds in it and you look like you just left a coal mine. No - it was not some particular brand of ammo. Happened regardless of brand or type of ammo, milsurp, commercial, or handloads. Also, I did not like the charging handle up on the barrel on the left. That's a personal preference and it would seem that such an arrangement is better than most, so my dislike for it is not reasonable. Also not a fan of the STANAG scope mount that supposedly allowed for repeated removal and remounting w/o zero loss. Bull!!! The mount is waaaay too high and puts your eye many inches above the line of the bore. If you were firing from a foxhole, you would expose a lot of head to your foe. Trigger sucked. Accuracy with the best ammo (Fed. GM Match 168 gr. HPBT) was under 2 min. of angle.
I was not crazy about the el cheapo sheet metal construction of the weapon or the way the barrel attaches to the receiver.
CETME - Pretty much the same comments as the PTR, except that the sights were not worth much. Accuracy not up to the level of the PTR.
SAIGA - Truthfully, I bought it on a whim and never really took much of a liking to it. OK - it's an AK on steroids. While I'm not really an AK fan, everybody knows that they are reliable, if nothing else. I did not like the short barrel - too much flash by a long shot. Trigger not good. Felt cheap and especially so with the plastic magazine. Mine had the standard AK type side mount so I was able to put a scope on it. Thus, I had no problem with the poor factory sights. Can't say that I recall any problem with groups opening up after barrel got hot. Maybe I was not paying enough attention or maybe I did not shoot it enough. Even possible that the groups did not open up. My Saiga was very, very picky about ammo. I never used any high test in it - only milsurp and it shot best with Port milsurp. Worst with Indian (or Pak) milsurp. Two minutes of angle was the best I could do (but then my eyes are awful and I'm not that great a shot anyway).
M1 Garand - Naturally it is not in the running for a modern "battle rifle", but my M1 is my all-time favorite rifle that I've ever had (and I've had many). Despite its weight and size, I've hunted with it and carried it all day in the field. I've shot everything from rabbits (110 gr. handloads) to deer (Sierra 165 gr. Matchking handloads) and everything in between with it. If I had to go to war with it, I'd not feel at a disadvantage pretty much regardless of what my opponent was carrying.
M1A - It is a Super Match and shoots so much better than I can that I won't even talk about its accuracy. True - it is heavier than it needs to be with the NM glass-bedded walnut stock (so I have a GI synth. stock too) and genuine GI mags are waaay too expensive. It is as reliable as any rifle I've ever had and maintains its grouping long after you could get 3rd degree burns from the barrel. I don't appreciate the complicated and overly expensive scope mounts. Let's face it - the rifle really is not intended for a scope anyway, despite the fact that they are using them in Iraq today.
FAL - Not for any reason that I can really put my finger on, but the FAL appeals to me more than any of the other "modern" battle rifles. I just sort of like it even better than my M1A. I love the feel and the rakish look of the pistol grip. The wonderfully adjustable gas system is unique and lets you use anybody's ammo without a problem. For example, I've got some of that crappy Indian milsurp. My M1A will not digest that ammo well (misfires, failures to eject, etc.), but the FAL, after simple adjustment handles them without a hitch. The rifle is heavy!!!
Mags are cheap and readily available.
My FAL has the sand-cut bolt carrier. I don't really know if that makes any difference or not, but some 26 countries found the FAL sufficiently reliable to adopt it. Only the Izzys reported sand problems and I understand that the bolt carrier cuts pretty much handled that. With a change of springs the trigger is fine. The sights are not all that wonderful, but an after-market receiver cover from TAPCO allows me to mount any sort of optic I want. Had to add some height to be stock comb though.
I've been lucky/unlucky; in that I've had one of every one of the guns you guys have been talking about. I HAD a PTR, a Saiga, a CETME, a milled AK47, and HAVE an M1 Garand, an M1A, and a FAL.
The first four were stolen in a burglary in 11/04, along with a 16" FAL and a number of hand guns.
I replaced the FAL with a 20 inch, but did not replace the others.
Anyway, i'm in a good position to speak to the high and low points of each.
Right off the bat though, have to admit that I was not aware of the recoil reduction on the newer PTR rifles. My experience with my PTR (a 2003 version) was that it was a shoulder bruiser from the bench, which pretty much amazed me, since my CETME did not do that at all and I've NEVER been particularly sensitive to recoil even in much more powerful rifles.
PTR - loved the good peep sights; the functionality, the pistol grip, the tough and apparently durable finish, the inexpensive and readily available magazines.
I did NOT like the fluted chamber because it beat hell out of brass and I reload. Also, it was the single dirtiest rifle I've ever had. Shoot a couple of hundred rounds in it and you look like you just left a coal mine. No - it was not some particular brand of ammo. Happened regardless of brand or type of ammo, milsurp, commercial, or handloads. Also, I did not like the charging handle up on the barrel on the left. That's a personal preference and it would seem that such an arrangement is better than most, so my dislike for it is not reasonable. Also not a fan of the STANAG scope mount that supposedly allowed for repeated removal and remounting w/o zero loss. Bull!!! The mount is waaaay too high and puts your eye many inches above the line of the bore. If you were firing from a foxhole, you would expose a lot of head to your foe. Trigger sucked. Accuracy with the best ammo (Fed. GM Match 168 gr. HPBT) was under 2 min. of angle.
I was not crazy about the el cheapo sheet metal construction of the weapon or the way the barrel attaches to the receiver.
CETME - Pretty much the same comments as the PTR, except that the sights were not worth much. Accuracy not up to the level of the PTR.
SAIGA - Truthfully, I bought it on a whim and never really took much of a liking to it. OK - it's an AK on steroids. While I'm not really an AK fan, everybody knows that they are reliable, if nothing else. I did not like the short barrel - too much flash by a long shot. Trigger not good. Felt cheap and especially so with the plastic magazine. Mine had the standard AK type side mount so I was able to put a scope on it. Thus, I had no problem with the poor factory sights. Can't say that I recall any problem with groups opening up after barrel got hot. Maybe I was not paying enough attention or maybe I did not shoot it enough. Even possible that the groups did not open up. My Saiga was very, very picky about ammo. I never used any high test in it - only milsurp and it shot best with Port milsurp. Worst with Indian (or Pak) milsurp. Two minutes of angle was the best I could do (but then my eyes are awful and I'm not that great a shot anyway).
M1 Garand - Naturally it is not in the running for a modern "battle rifle", but my M1 is my all-time favorite rifle that I've ever had (and I've had many). Despite its weight and size, I've hunted with it and carried it all day in the field. I've shot everything from rabbits (110 gr. handloads) to deer (Sierra 165 gr. Matchking handloads) and everything in between with it. If I had to go to war with it, I'd not feel at a disadvantage pretty much regardless of what my opponent was carrying.
M1A - It is a Super Match and shoots so much better than I can that I won't even talk about its accuracy. True - it is heavier than it needs to be with the NM glass-bedded walnut stock (so I have a GI synth. stock too) and genuine GI mags are waaay too expensive. It is as reliable as any rifle I've ever had and maintains its grouping long after you could get 3rd degree burns from the barrel. I don't appreciate the complicated and overly expensive scope mounts. Let's face it - the rifle really is not intended for a scope anyway, despite the fact that they are using them in Iraq today.
FAL - Not for any reason that I can really put my finger on, but the FAL appeals to me more than any of the other "modern" battle rifles. I just sort of like it even better than my M1A. I love the feel and the rakish look of the pistol grip. The wonderfully adjustable gas system is unique and lets you use anybody's ammo without a problem. For example, I've got some of that crappy Indian milsurp. My M1A will not digest that ammo well (misfires, failures to eject, etc.), but the FAL, after simple adjustment handles them without a hitch. The rifle is heavy!!!
Mags are cheap and readily available.
My FAL has the sand-cut bolt carrier. I don't really know if that makes any difference or not, but some 26 countries found the FAL sufficiently reliable to adopt it. Only the Izzys reported sand problems and I understand that the bolt carrier cuts pretty much handled that. With a change of springs the trigger is fine. The sights are not all that wonderful, but an after-market receiver cover from TAPCO allows me to mount any sort of optic I want. Had to add some height to be stock comb though.
