.308 Battle Rifle

[MachIVshooter]

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]

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]

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]

...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]

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]

All I need or want is my M 14/ M 1A.

 

[Don357]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.
[YOUTUBE]6xC7Wokz36I[/YOUTUBE]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 ? 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]

"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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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.