Best tactical rifle choice

"best" is a relative, and rather silly term. perhaps you should do more research on the platforms before asking. google is your friend and most, if not all, of the answers to your questions can be found quickly.

I think they are all more or less pretty good on items 1-6, but item 7 is what will set them apart. The AR-15 and the M1A are the only ones that really have any kind of aftermarket support and available spare parts. Of the two, the AR would be quite a bit cheaper to accumulate spare parts for.

Since you are opening the gates to all makes, models and price-points, have you considered the piston options of LWRC, PWS and POF? Or did you previously eliminate them? Just curious.

Of what you listed I would go with the DDM4 or the SCAR16.

The DDM4 is probably the best choices since it leaves more money for ammo, mags, and training. In addition it will have a lot more aftermarket support and parts availability. Don't get me wrong. I like the SCAR, and even the ACR (if you replace the barrel) but I would not pick either as my first or even primary carbine.

I actually asked Larry Vickers this very question in December. His response was that right now there isn't anything "better enough" on the market than the AR. Sure each one has it's own benefits. And may or may not do something better than the AR. But when you factor in cost, parts availability, etc there just isn't a way to justify them.

And the DDM4 you mentioned is a great choice for an AR. I have had a couple of DD guns and they have been great.

Some of the others you mentioned were not bad but I will run down a couple of them.


FN SCAR 17s Great gun. But heavy and expensive. Lack of aftermarket parts. .308 round is overkill in a defensive carbine

FN SCAR 16s Great gun as well. Short rail and extending it adds a lot of weight. Heavy bolt has caused some very high quality optics to malfunction.

FN FS2000 Tactical Parts can be hard to get but an interesting design. Bullpup design has some inherent flaws. Trigger is... Well not that nice.

HK MR556 An abortion that makes nobody happy. Took away most of the nice things about the HK416. Heavy, non chrome lined barrel. Just different enough from a normal AR to make parts an issue.

Kriss Super V Vector riflePistol caliber weapon in a rifle sized body. It looks cool but I would stick with something using a better cartridge like 5.56 in a more proven platform.

Springfield Scout M1A Proven over the years. But heavy and in the end it is essentially a 1930s design with a few modifications. Nothing wrong with this but it isn't that practical. Saw a guy try to run one in a Carbine class. Lasted about an hour before he borrowed an AR. Also see my comments about .308 in the SCAR above

Sig Sauer SIG556 Not terrible but once again Hard to get parts and a lot heavier than it looks. Buddy of mine replaced his with a Noveske N4 for everyday use.


Bushmaster ACR Enhanced Bushmaster Borked this one up the moment they got it. I am getting one as a project gun but it is simply that. A project. The barrel is terrible and they added a couple pounds that never needed to be there.

FN Herstal PS90 Tri-rail
FN PS90 Standard Nice if you SBR them but the round is a bit anemic compared to 5.56 and if you have large hands you will have trouble with the stock on this.

HK USC .45acp Expensive and takes a lot of money to get them up to par. Also shoots a pistol caliber in a rifle package.

RPG-7

Scar-17 is my dream gun lol

I wasn't even thinking, yes I've seen some piston rifles out there.
Which of the following piston ar-15's do you think would be best in terms of my above criteria?

Click to expand...

I hear LWRC makes a nice gun, but google some reviews of the PWS MK116. Like most AR designs, except for the obvious proprietary piston, I believe it passes all your tests. You can step up to the MK2 series if you want a .308.

precisionrifle14 said:

Are Wilson Combat, ADCOR, PARA USA, or Anderson Manufacturing any good?

Click to expand...

No.

You sure picked some expensive guns, and a lot of blam ones too. The only one I recommend with my knowledge for sure is the M1a. I'd recommend a Sig 556, but I never figures out how the sights worked, and it's a lot more expensive while using a weaker round.

The ps90's bullet just seems like a fancy designed 22 mag bullet to me. Lol I'm sure it's equivalent in power as the 22 mag. So forget it

You've opened yourself to everyones opinion as it's highly unlikely anyone here has tried ALL the rifles. Rather than try to find one that will do any and everything, why don't you just buy something and try it out...like a cheap, run of the mill AR. If you don't like it, you can sell it and move on.

I'm a new AR owner and though I really don't care for them or tacti-cool rifles in general, (I built one because it was soooo cheap) they appear to be pretty close to a one size fits all rifle. I've fired a couple of High Power matches with mine and it's been pretty much reliable so long as I keep it oiled a little.

About the same time I bought a Mini-14 to keep around here for stray dogs and chicken eating coyotes. Mine, a 581 Series has been a bit more reliable (as in 100% feeding and ejecting) than my AR and I've never put a drop of oil anywhere in it. Disassembling one makes it easy to understand why they're so reliable and rugged. After bedding it and fire lapping the barrel I tried it this evening and was rewarded with a 1" 5-shot group using handloadeds with ordinary Prvi 62 gr. FMJBT bullets. I know you didn't ask about a Mini, but it's pretty much the same as an M1A...just smaller.

I have to agree about the silly 5.7 cartridge. It really is on just about the same power level and a 22 magnum rimfire.

.308 round is overkill in a defensive carbine

Click to expand...

What's "overkill"? Is it possible to "over-eliminate" a threat? I've never read an account of an individual defending themselves when they stated "I wish I'd have used a less powerful cartridge.".

35W

I agree with eliminating the pistol-caliber choices. The only thing I would ever want a 5.7x28 for is a very short barreled carbine that is strictly for close quarters. And the only thing I would want a .45 ACP for is a pistol or a short submachine gun.

I agree with 35 Whelen... just get a good AR-15 and start shooting. Take it to an Appleseed, take it to a carbine course, shoot a little 3-gun with it... and as you get more experience with it you will start to know more what you want, and can customize it to fit your preferences. The nice thing about an AR is that you can set it up in all sorts of different configurations, and can have different uppers for different roles. It would be the perfect rifle for someone like you, who doesn't seem to know exactly what he wants in a rifle!

As for which ones could pass DD's torture test, really a DD doesn't have any magic properties... they are one of several companies who make a high quality AR that meets or exceeds the mil specs. I would think any of the rifles that have similar QC and features, like M4 feed ramps, chrome lined barrel, MPI and HPT barrel and bolt, and staked gas key would be every bit as reliable. So if that level of reliability is your goal, you might widen your search to include Noveske, Colt, BCM, PSA, and Spike's, to name a few.

If that is your standard for reliability (which is as good as any), it would also be met or exceeded by just about any AK, and by just about any M-14 or FAL platform with good GI parts. Also, the tests and reviews I have seen seem to show that the SCAR is at least as reliable as a good AR.

I can't really speak as to any of the others.

7.62 NATO is overkill in a defensive* rifle.*

Sure, that .30 caliber has more energy than 5.56 NATO but that power comes at the expense of a heavier, longer weapon (which can be a bad thing in and of itself) and increased recoil.*

Increased recoil is bad because it increases the time between shots. Maybe you missed with the first shot or maybe there was more than one had guy, but sometimes you need to shoot rapidly and 7.62x51 is not comdusive to that.*

Humans are not bears or buffalo. Locally, the people that are shot by the police with their 5.56 rifles loaded with thin jacked HP bullets die, and almost always die from one round being fired into the head or torso.*

It would be great to get the power of 7.62 NATO in a weapon with the size of a AR and the recoil of a 9mmP subgun but it can't be done. Light weight, recoil, power: pick any two.*

BSW*

*Weapon for killing men within 200 yards.

I would go with a good name AR, 16", midlength, FF tube, Battle comp, Eotech or Aimpoint.

Daniel Defense
Novske
LaRue
etc.

What's "overkill"? Is it possible to "over-eliminate" a threat?

Click to expand...

To me, the definition of Overkill would be the possibility that a round could end up in a neighbors home.

To me, the definition of Overkill would be the possibility that a round could end up in a neighbors home.

Click to expand...

In that case, don't use any rounds. If it can force somebody who is drunk, tweaked mindless on methamphetamine, enraged, and driven to kill, then it can go through a wall. If you fear overpenetration, then use a melee weapon. In a list of defensive weapon characteristics, overpenetration is way down on the list, at about the level of how easily it can be field stripped.

1. reliability (what will it take to stop the rifle from firing, not break it)
Magazines, ammo, and operator error are #1,2,3 in order of making a rifle malfunction.
2. accuracy (realistic accuracy, not 1/4moa groups, but all shots in brain stem at 25-50 yards)
Most tactical rifles are 2MOA - a ten inch circle at 500m, which is 1/2 the size of a lethal kill zone.
3. ruggedness ( what will it take to break the rifle)
Varies a bit, but most guns made for combat use can hoist a soldier with gear with two men lifting him to a window. Beyond that - any will break.
4. ergonomics (can I hand the rifle to a large guy, small guy, righty, or lefty and have them effectively use it?)
Varies - an adjustable stock helps, even a small guy can shoot a fixed stock rifle accurately. Wearing a chest plate carrier and shooting square, long rifles have a disadvantage.
5. durability (if I couldn't change out parts, how long would the rifle go before absolutely failing)
Most combat rifles will shoot 8-10 combat loads without cleaning, and have a service life of 25,000 to 50,000 rounds. Full auto fire reduces that considerably.
6. weight (anything under 8-9lbs. is acceptable, but lighter is better)
Depends on what accessories are added, whether it has a heavy target barrel, etc.
7. aftermarket support (stock, handguard, grip, or rail space for different accessories)
Only the most popular that have been on the market long enough to generate demand. In other words, all of these except the M1A are a huge step below the AR15.

The issue is market demand and who's selling proprietary parts. HK's, FN's etc are generally a single source contract situation. You basically buy it the way it is and use it. Aside from clamping gear on picitinny rails - and all that gear is interchangeable - the existence of alternate parts to modify a gun is largely based on it's popularity.

HK91 custom parts were notoriously hard to get, even factory in the day. It was a situation of going to a gun show and finding maybe two tables in 1,000 with reasonably priced parts, like a claw mount or Euro handguard. The newer and more proprietary the design, the less likely the industry has bothered to tool up. Most of what you see is adapted AR parts - a check of what's available for the AK shows that. Except for a rail mount on the gas block, it's just AR parts worked over. Shotguns, too.

If there is a specific reason to open the floodgates and consider just any tactical gun offered out there, prioritize it's importance. Some overwork where the piston is located, or make much about a folding stock, or that it has a charging handle that changes sides. In most cases, it has really nothing to do with what the gun is meant to do - launch a projectile downrange in a reasonably accurate manner at a target.

If there's some confusion, step back and consider: What distances are going to be shot at - realistiically, 85-90% of the time, and what target? Match the cartridge FIRST, then move on to which platform offers the most cost effective solution, in the closest configuration that meets the task.

AR is likely it - there are alternative cartridges, and there's a plethora of parts.

briansmithwins said:

7.62 NATO is overkill in a defensive* rifle.*

Sure, that .30 caliber has more energy than 5.56 NATO but that power comes at the expense of a heavier, longer weapon (which can be a bad thing in and of itself) and increased recoil.*

Increased recoil is bad because it increases the time between shots. Maybe you missed with the first shot or maybe there was more than one had guy, but sometimes you need to shoot rapidly and 7.62x51 is not comdusive to that.*

Humans are not bears or buffalo. Locally, the people that are shot by the police with their 5.56 rifles loaded with thin jacked HP bullets die, and almost always die from one round being fired into the head or torso.*

It would be great to get the power of 7.62 NATO in a weapon with the size of a AR and the recoil of a 9mmP subgun but it can't be done. Light weight, recoil, power: pick any two.*

BSW*

*Weapon for killing men within 200 yards.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it's a wonder we got through WW2 and the Korean War with those M1 Garands and that 30-06 caliber... lol... and the M1A is a great defensive rifle also...

HK MR556 An abortion that makes nobody happy. Took away most of the nice things about the HK416. Heavy, non chrome lined barrel. Just different enough from a normal AR to make parts an issue.

Click to expand...

Say what? It is nearly identical to the HK416, you don't know what you are talking about.

Here, educate yourself with pictures of all the "nice" things HK took away between the two rifles.:banghead:

Click