Advice on a MODERN battle rifle

[lwaldron]

Well, you can't own a MODERN battle rifle, at least, not in California, not with a full-capacity detachable magazine and a bayonet lug.
But, I'm hoping to move away from this cesspit sometime in 2005, and when I do, I'd really like to buy a modern full-power semi-auto main battle rifle.
I figure by the time I'm in a free state, all the CETMEs will have been sold off. So I've been looking at PTR-91s. And they look good.
But I wonder, is this a prima donna kind of rifle?
I'm pretty confident I could drop-kick my Garand, and it'd still work just fine. Can the PTR-91 take a lickin' and keep on tickin'? I remember reading back in the 1980's that the H&K G-3 (91) was considered very rugged and reliable. Would a PTR-91 crap out the first time dirt got in the workings?
Maybe I should buy an FAL instead?

 

[Risasi]

All of those are fine options. Everyone loves the FAL. I prefer HK's because I'm left handed. I wouldn't call either one a MODERN battle rifle though.

[EDIT] Wait until you are back in the U.S. it's hard to suggest either one as mostly it's personal preference. Just find a gun shop that has both and try them out. Unless of course you have handled either of them before, but then I don't know why you would be asking us which one to get.

 

[natedog]

If it must be .308, I prefer the FAL. It's lighter, more ergonomic, and has more options as to stocks, barrels, finishes, accessories, configurations, etc. than the HK-91.

I'd take a good AR-15 over both of them, though, but that's just me. Either an M-4 or a 20" with an A1 profile barrel and flattop reciever, from the a,b,C, or rr (armalite, bushmaster, COLT, rock river arms).


Your Garand would be alright, but I doubt your foot would....

 

[Feanaro]

Unless improperly made the G3 line has excellent reliability. Not so excellent in the cleaning department(don't listen to that frozen tub of jello from Alaska though, it's not really hard Just not as easy as some other rifles) but a very reliable rifle. Good accuracy too. The C.A.I. CETME/G3 rifles aren't as reliable in the quality control department but if they work, they work.

You might like the FAL though. The ergonomics are better for some strange people. And there are plenty of aftermarket parts. DSA makes the best.

Edit: check this thread out at ar15.com. http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=6&f=9&t=179079

 

[PAC 762]

FAL has better ergos, better sights, and less recoil. M1A is nice as well.

I love my FAL, but it won't do anything better than my Garand will. I say get an FAL or HK91 if you want, but don't fee undergunned with the old M1 that you already have.

 

[Harry Tuttle]

 

[lwaldron]

"Batteries Not Included"

Well, it looks cool, but what if you run out of batteries?

 

[Domino]

Well, it looks cool, but what if you run out of batteries?

Then it looks like you have a 6 pound piece of plastic, rather than an 8 or 9 pound metal and wood stick like a real "battle rifle".

 

[MrMurphy]

If the batteries croak you have iron sights....... the rifle goes bang without the batteries.


Any rifle available in the U.S now was designed at least 30-40 years ago. There's nothing really "modern" out there.

Even the Steyr Aug has been around since '77. The FAMAS, around the same time, the SA80, duh, 1980 or maybe 1985?

The Nikonov is not available, neither is the FN2000, etc.

 

[Tamara]

Any rifle available in the U.S now was designed at least 30-40 years ago. There's nothing really "modern" out there.

Ironically, the US civilian isn't much worse off than the rest of the world market in this regard (so far.) Russia scraped up the cash to field, like, twelve AN-94's. The only people armed with FN2000's are booth bimbos at arms industry trade shows. The Tavor has only seen service in Mall Ninja comic #47. The G11 fiasco crippled HK enough to let it be cornered by a limey conglomerate, which ate its soul.

It's like the governments of the world are not interested in paying tremendous bucks for incremental technology and are instead waiting for The Next Big Step. Something out there on a drawing board right now will be the equivalent of the Dreyse, the Lebel, the Garand, and the StG43.

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

There's a rumor going around that FN is going to bring in the P90, which certainly qualifies as modern. But I can't imagine that the 5.7x28 ammo would be the best choice for a battle rifle. This seems to me a step backwards rather than a step forwards. What's next? .22 rimfire?

 

[nhhillbilly]

I believe the reason you are not seeing any big changes is the goverment killed all free lance design by the 1986 law not allowing any more full auto's to civilians. If you look at most of the successful designs they were orginally made by civillians and they tweaked them for the goverment. Time to remove some laws. In keeping with this thread, I like the FN FAL.

 

[Onmilo]

Personally, I still consider the G3/Hk91 to be the finest, general purpose, BATTLE rifle that chambers the very best, general purpose, BATTLE cartridge.
This rifle is designed to be used hard, put away wet, pulled out damp, and still keep working, flawlessly, and they will do just that.
The rifle is inexpensive enough to be destroyed in combat without great loss yet it is still designed to be easily rebuilt time after time after time of heavy use in the training arena.
These rifles aren't "the best" at anything, yet their very design, history of use, and theory of design make them the finest examples of the meaning of the words "BATTLE RIFLES".

 

[Number 6]

There's a rumor going around that FN is going to bring in the P90, which certainly qualifies as modern. But I can't imagine that the 5.7x28 ammo would be the best choice for a battle rifle. This seems to me a step backwards rather than a step forwards. What's next? .22 rimfire?

http://www.impactguns.com/store/FNPS90.html

I think its a little more than a rumor. Wildalaska also had a group buy for them not too long ago, if I remember correctly.

 

[Gewehr98]

There's only one problem with some of those suggestions.

I'd take a good AR-15 over both of them, though, but that's just me. Either an M-4 or a 20" with an A1 profile barrel and flattop reciever, from the a,b,C, or rr (armalite, bushmaster, COLT, rock river arms).

The AR, and the FN P-90, don't really fit the description of battle rifle, now do they?

Maybe the AR-10, or SR-25, in .308.

 

[redneck2]

Yo, G98

so the AR isn't a battle rifle??? Dunno what your definition is, but over 100,000 guys (and gals I guess) in Iraq hope you're wrong

This Spring I'm hoping to get a mousegun. RRA, prolly 1-8 twist, 24" flattop with a match grade barrel. Anything that can hit a prarie dog consistently at 400 yards+ gets my attention.

You're idea of the .308 version seems an excellent choice. Light, relatively low recoil, and accurate. Typically, fighting off prarie dog attacks isn't an issue so I'll stick with the .223

 

[Risasi]

Redneck,

A battle rifle is chambered in a full size cartridge. The ASSAULT rifles like the AR are currently what most of the armed forces carry, this is an intermediate cartridge. Don't get so uptight.

[EDIT] Sorry, I said AR. I meant M-16. An assault rifle also has to be full automatic. Not just semi.

 

[Gewehr98]

Redneck, do a "battle rifle" search either here or on TFL.

You needn't get snippy with me. I'm issued an M16A2, along with my M9, until the Air Force retires me later next year.

Us old flatulent products of the sphincter are very much aware of the difference between battle rifles and assault rifles. Let me help things out a smidgen:

Assault Rifle - a rifle specially suited for combat-type operations, designed for effective combat ranges of under 400 meters, using an intermediate round (eg. 5.56 mm NATO, or 7.62 x 39 mm), which is loaded into the rifle in a box magazine - civilian versions would include the popular AR-15 variants, as well as the AK 47 - assault rifles are characterized by their light weight and low recoil

Battle Rifle - a rifle specially suited for combat-type operations, designed for effective combat ranges of under 800 meters, using a full size rifle round (eg. 7.62 NATO), which is loaded into the rifle in a box magazine - civilian versions would include the HK 91, as well as the Galil ARM - battle rifles are characterized by their heavier weight and extreme accuracy

And, of course, the difference in the respective applications:

The primary purpose of each respective weapon is somewhat different. The assault rifle is better suited to organized military operation where support fire is available. Most modern military organizations use assault rifles as their primary weapon. The reasons are extensive. The primary advantages of assault weapons are their relatively lightweight ammunition, the ease of operation, and their durability.

The battle rifle, on the other hand, was designed to be effective at long distances. This was especially logical in times of war when air support, or even infantry support, relied upon inaccurate and unreliable technology. The benefits of battle rifles are centralized in the area of firepower. The full size rifle rounds are much more capable of penetrating vehicles, buildings, and armor, than their intermediate size cousins are.

That difference isn't lost these days in Afghanistan and Iraq. A goodly amount of these sharp-dressed fellows aren't packing M16 or M4 variants, last I looked:

 

[Risasi]

Yeah, you pretty much covered it Gewehr.

Sound like someone feels disadvantaged with his mouse gun? Sheesh.





Sigmund Freud:
"A fear of [strike]weapons[/strike] battle rifles is a sign of [strike]retarded sexual and emotional maturity[/strike] someone with a mouse gun ...

 

[lwaldron]

So, the feeling I'm getting from this thread is that the G3/H&K 91 variant is a good selection (if I ever make it out of California). I like the idea of a modern (more so than my Garand) battle rifle which can be "ridden hard and put away wet" (not that I'd ever do such a thing).
That said, is the PTR-91 a good choice? Or should I be looking at another variant?

 

[RaySendero]

Battle Rifle - a rifle specially suited for combat-type operations, designed for effective combat ranges of under 800 meters, using a full size rifle round (eg. 7.62 NATO), which is loaded into the rifle in a box magazine. Battle rifles are characterized by their heavier weight and extreme accuracy.

Sounds a lot like a M1A from Springfield Armory!

 

[Tamara]

This rifle is designed to be used hard, put away wet, pulled out damp, and still keep working, flawlessly, and they will do just that.

So will the FAL, CETME, Galil, M1A, Valmet, AR-10, and a bunch of other .308 rifles.

 

[444]

I agree that none of the stuff you mentioned is a modern battle rifle, but they are all great rifles that will get the job done.
I don't own a PTR-91 but I think I have two of the same thing: HK G3 parts kit on an American receiver that I put together myself.
I also own a couple FALs: same story, parts kits assembled on DSA receivers.
I also own a Springfield Armory M1A as well as a number of M1s.
If I actually intended to do battle with one of my rifles, I would leave all of them at home and grab an AR, but that isn't what you asked.
I am really impressed with the HK. The controls leave something to be desired, but so do the controls of the FAL. The best controls are on the M1A.
The accuracy of the HK is really incredible. I was at a kind of informal match last month and after the match, they decided to have a few shoot-offs for turkeys. At the range we have a steel plate about as big as the upper chest of a man located at 385 yards. I put my dollar into the pot and fired my five shots at the plate off-hand using the HK. I got three hits out of five (which didn't win: someone else got four hits). That, to me is pretty good accuracy (and I must brag-pretty good shooting on my part). In the limited amount of shooting I have done with the HK it has never malfunctioned and it is obviously very accurate (noticeably more accurate than the other stuff I am shooting).

 

[Risasi]

Iwaldron,

Lest we digress further. To answer your question. Yes the PTR is quite suitable. Even a CETME is a decent battle rifle, if you don't mind tinkering with the problems the Century Monkeys put in them (being facetious, they have fixed many problems that plagued the older ones, but seriously, who wants to fore go the wood stock?) Anyway I feel like I need to state again. It's all about personal preference. I don't think you can go wrong with any of the battle rifles that have been listed, except for a lemon.

All battle rifles, save for the AR-10 are built quite ruggedly. And before I get flamed the AR-10 is quite a fine rifle too. I just don't see it as being built to the loose specs the others are, therefore potentially more prone to failure. And yes it generally speaking has the potential to shoot more accurately bacause of this. And yes many improvements have been made that make the reliability issues a thing of the past. (Though I never considered the AR-10 to have much in the way of problems like it's younger brother the AR-15.) But it comes at a price. The ultimate .308 MBR would have to be the Knight's Armament (commonly called SR25). But at a price tag of about $3300 that's about 1.5 HK91's, nearly two DSA FAL's, about what four PTR's. And a whole lotta CETME's. Then again a lot can be done with an M1, which as noted is also a MBR. It's like Ford vs. Chevy. They all have strengths and weaknesses.

It all depends, what is your preference, and are you looking for safe queen or dirt and grime gun. Myself, I never shoot my HK's, in fact one I have never fired. They just sit. That's why I got the CETME, fun to tinker with.

 

[Dionysusigma]

Then again a lot can be done with an M1, which as noted is also a MBR. It's like Ford vs. Chevy.

That'd make Hk the equivalent of BMW, wouldn't it?

I tend to equate FALs with licorice... those that like them swear their lives by them. And some people cannot stand them at all. I fall into the latter...

... which is why I like the G3 design. I have always wanted a PTR, but have not yet had available funds to purchase one. Ah well... one day (if they don't get banned first). *knock on wood* Mags are unbelievably cheap, too.

But the other day, I was putting together a dream-list of what I wanted out of a rifle chambered for a full-power round. It had to have style, it had to be of American manufacture and design, it had to be in .308/7.62x51, with a barrel length of 16-22". Know what I came up with?

Springfield Armory Scout Squad M1A