.308 assault rifle
- Thread starter jjwdb7
- Start date
- Status
briansmithwins
Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2005
- Messages
- 4,631
Technically, a rifle chambered in 7.62 NATO can't be an assault rifle as part of the definition of an assault rifle is that it fires a intermediate cartridge.
The FN FAL and G3 are considered good brands, but a transferable full auto is going to be $20k or more.
BSW
The FN FAL and G3 are considered good brands, but a transferable full auto is going to be $20k or more.
BSW
Ragnar Danneskjold
Member
Are there even any Knight's Armament assault rifles on the transferable database?
Zanad
Member
so what are you exactly looking for? its hard to suggest what to get when we have nothing one your biases.
I LOVE the M1a, the full auto version is the m14 and those run more than a new car.
as to the AR-10 style, NO, they were not made(that I know of) in automatic version that us "comoners" can have without alot of red tape and are only transferable as post dealer samples.
I LOVE the M1a, the full auto version is the m14 and those run more than a new car.
as to the AR-10 style, NO, they were not made(that I know of) in automatic version that us "comoners" can have without alot of red tape and are only transferable as post dealer samples.
ok, let me re-phrase the question. i know that armalite makes the ar10 that shoots 7.62 nato (or .308, i'm not getting technical here). what are some other brands that make rifles similar to the ar10? i'm not too impressed with what i've read about armalite. so far the best seems to be knight's armament sr-25. i just can't find a ton out. so i thought i would ask. again, sorry to ask such a dumb question.
W.E.G.
Member
There is really only one "true" assault rifle.
rozziboy18
Member
if you want a ebr, gab up one of the dpms's in 308. very acurate and good customer service!
12131
Member
POF 308 and LMT 308 MWS
As I understand the question, you're interested in military-style .308 semi-auto rifles. You might also consider the Saiga and FN-FAL type. DSA makes high quality FAL-type rifles. The M1A is also a fine rifle if you like iron sights.
coloradokevin
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2008
- Messages
- 3,285
A WORD REGARDING "ASSAULT" RIFLES:
jjwdb7,
As you may have gathered from the posts thus far, the term "Assault Rifle" isn't very popular around here. The problem with the terminology is simply that it leaves people believing that the sole purpose of a certain type of rifle is to wage a war, attack people, or engage in some other sort of armed conflict.
That purpose couldn't be further from the truth for most of the firearms that have been given this label. Simply put, they aren't being used to "assault" anything, and we don't want people who aren't familiar with firearms to associate semi-automatic (autoloading) guns with weapons of war. Most often these firearms are only used for lawful hunting, target shooting, competitive shooting, plinking, or home defense.
To take this issue a step further, similar looking military issued small arms are often built to be "selective fire" (fully automatic / burst). These types of firearms are quite different from the rifles that you or I are buying over-the-counter at the local sporting goods store.
In recent decades the term "Assault Rifle" has become very popular within the somewhat powerful anti-gun lobby, and it probably isn't wise to perpetuate such a misleading term among those of us who do engage in shooting-related activities. Simply put, using this terminology adds fuel to the argument that this lobby is trying to sell, by giving them an opportunity to identify these firearms as devices that were designed solely for the purpose of "assaulting" someone.
Common sense tells us that virtually any item can be used to assault another person, but we certainly don't want to give the general public the impression that our firearms are going to be used for such illicit purposes, or that these guns will allow us to dominate the neighborhood streets with machinegun fire (such an idea may sound ridiculous to you, but the anti-gun lobby has certainly tried to "sell" these fears in the past).
Anyway, more to the point of your question regarding semi-automatic .308 Win rifles:
I really like the Springfield Armory M1A style rifle. These were roughly modeled after the old M-14 rifles, and they are known for being very accurate. They look quite nice in a walnut stock configuration, and are plenty functional with the synthetic stocks. They aren't cheap, but they shoot great.
The AR-10 platform is also popular, though there isn't much to say about these (it is basically an AR-15 built to chamber the .308 Win).
jjwdb7,
As you may have gathered from the posts thus far, the term "Assault Rifle" isn't very popular around here. The problem with the terminology is simply that it leaves people believing that the sole purpose of a certain type of rifle is to wage a war, attack people, or engage in some other sort of armed conflict.
That purpose couldn't be further from the truth for most of the firearms that have been given this label. Simply put, they aren't being used to "assault" anything, and we don't want people who aren't familiar with firearms to associate semi-automatic (autoloading) guns with weapons of war. Most often these firearms are only used for lawful hunting, target shooting, competitive shooting, plinking, or home defense.
To take this issue a step further, similar looking military issued small arms are often built to be "selective fire" (fully automatic / burst). These types of firearms are quite different from the rifles that you or I are buying over-the-counter at the local sporting goods store.
In recent decades the term "Assault Rifle" has become very popular within the somewhat powerful anti-gun lobby, and it probably isn't wise to perpetuate such a misleading term among those of us who do engage in shooting-related activities. Simply put, using this terminology adds fuel to the argument that this lobby is trying to sell, by giving them an opportunity to identify these firearms as devices that were designed solely for the purpose of "assaulting" someone.
Common sense tells us that virtually any item can be used to assault another person, but we certainly don't want to give the general public the impression that our firearms are going to be used for such illicit purposes, or that these guns will allow us to dominate the neighborhood streets with machinegun fire (such an idea may sound ridiculous to you, but the anti-gun lobby has certainly tried to "sell" these fears in the past).
Anyway, more to the point of your question regarding semi-automatic .308 Win rifles:
I really like the Springfield Armory M1A style rifle. These were roughly modeled after the old M-14 rifles, and they are known for being very accurate. They look quite nice in a walnut stock configuration, and are plenty functional with the synthetic stocks. They aren't cheap, but they shoot great.
The AR-10 platform is also popular, though there isn't much to say about these (it is basically an AR-15 built to chamber the .308 Win).
Ragnar Danneskjold
Member
Lewis Machine Tools makes some amazing rifles if you're willing to spend the money.
Having owned a Knights I can tell you that if you aren't a government agency, their customer service sucks. Mind you, this was a couple of years ago and they may be better now, but after the issues I had getting a problem with my SR-25 fixed, I will never buy anything from KAC.
I've also owned an AR-10T which was a great rifle. I wish Armalite didn't use proprietary magazines, since MagPul is now making a mag for the Mk11 and M110 rifles as well as just about every other 308 AR except the AR-10.
In 308 the most popular battle rifles seem to be the M14 clones (SA M1A, Fulton, etc), FAL, AR-10 types and HK G3 clones.
I've also owned an AR-10T which was a great rifle. I wish Armalite didn't use proprietary magazines, since MagPul is now making a mag for the Mk11 and M110 rifles as well as just about every other 308 AR except the AR-10.
In 308 the most popular battle rifles seem to be the M14 clones (SA M1A, Fulton, etc), FAL, AR-10 types and HK G3 clones.
You actually won't find many .308 designs. The window of use was from about 1958 to 1978. They had a short life. Most of the reason was due to the cartridge itself, which is more than adequate for military use - in fact, it's too powerful.
The basic research that led up to the first assault rifle showed soldiers simply did not shoot larger calibers as much, and would not use the range. It also showed that more bullets flying on the battlefield meant more casualties - which seems a no brainer. So, equipped with facts, designers went to intermediate cartridges that matched the ranges humans would actually attempt a shot, and gave them more ammo to do it, along with full auto.
"Battle rifles" were the first attempt to merge the new thinking with the old, and it doesn't work. They still try to use the heavier cartridges, while attempting better ergonomics and dealing with magazines. It helped some, but soldiers were no more prone to shoot them more or further any more than the older bolt actions. It just took less effort.
SOME of us refuse to quit using the term assault rifle. What we do is use it correctly - as a reference to full auto weapons designed for military use, and issued as such. There certainly are assault rifles - the one pictured is the grand daddy of them all, and the literal translation of it's name is assault rifle. It's also on the market in semi auto form as a reproduction for the WWII reenactor crowd, and doing ok. But as a semi auto, it is most emphatically not an assault rifle, and that is where the ignorant are completely wrong.
The basic research that led up to the first assault rifle showed soldiers simply did not shoot larger calibers as much, and would not use the range. It also showed that more bullets flying on the battlefield meant more casualties - which seems a no brainer. So, equipped with facts, designers went to intermediate cartridges that matched the ranges humans would actually attempt a shot, and gave them more ammo to do it, along with full auto.
"Battle rifles" were the first attempt to merge the new thinking with the old, and it doesn't work. They still try to use the heavier cartridges, while attempting better ergonomics and dealing with magazines. It helped some, but soldiers were no more prone to shoot them more or further any more than the older bolt actions. It just took less effort.
SOME of us refuse to quit using the term assault rifle. What we do is use it correctly - as a reference to full auto weapons designed for military use, and issued as such. There certainly are assault rifles - the one pictured is the grand daddy of them all, and the literal translation of it's name is assault rifle. It's also on the market in semi auto form as a reproduction for the WWII reenactor crowd, and doing ok. But as a semi auto, it is most emphatically not an assault rifle, and that is where the ignorant are completely wrong.
a-sheepdog
Member
Take a look at Rock River Arms LAR-8, uses FAL magazines, which can still be had for a reasonable price...at least for now.
ny32182
Member
I don't like anti gunners any more than the next guy, but all modern firearm actions (lever, bolt, autoloading/closed bolt, autoloading/open bolt, etc...) were originally invented to allow soldiers to shoot people faster than they could with a muzzle loading weapon; this is just a fact.
Of course there are many other uses, but denying the original intent of the design is not academically honest. Stoner didn't have Bambi on his mind when he invented the AR10/15.
If you consider less than a handful of small trigger parts to constitute "quite different", I guess that is a subjective call... I wouldn't. I also think that if we pole our military members, we'll find that the burst/auto function of M16 derivatives is barely even used in a military application. So, if the rifle I have can do 99% of the same job yours can... those aren't really quite different.
I've never seen a gun forum without a strong contingent of people who take zombie movies a little too seriously and seem to make a full time sport out of camping out waiting for the end of the world with their AR and 10k rounds of ammo at the ready.
I can appreciate not pushing anti agenda, but when we go too far in the other direction we are doing the same thing: making the 2A about sporting goods, which is also something the antis would like to do. My guns are sporting goods today. That doesn't mean they will ALWAYS be so. The 2nd amendment isn't about sporting goods.
Correct me if I am wrong, but our forefathers didn't have Bambi on their mind when drafting the Second Amendment either. The terminology does matter. Assault is different than defense.
This is a valid concern for gun rights advocates, as we are constantly under attack from anti gun groups that use emotional based wording to describe firearms with the aim of producing an emotionalistic response in voters.
If you enjoy your rights you must be equally as vigilant in not spreading their own anti-firearm marketing terminology.
Have you ever seen abortion proponents use the term Pro-Death, or those against it use the term Anti-Choice? It matters, and in the case of firearms, even more because it is blatantly incorrect.
ny32182
Member
My post means what it says: They are similar in terms of everything but some trigger parts, and those parts have very little real world impact on how effectively the rifle can be applied to 99% of tasks at hand.
Col. Plink
Member
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2009
- Messages
- 1,775
Saiga 308 Version 21 has a nice thumbhole hogsback stock and can be very accurate (around 6 bills on mississippiautoarms.com)
- Status