Advice on a MODERN battle rifle

[Feanaro]

That said, is the PTR-91 a good choice? Or should I be looking at another variant?

The PTR-91 is a good choice but on the expensive side. If you have a little more money or are very mechanically inclined(welding and possibly barrel pressing) you can make your own. A receiver(Get a JLD receiver, the same on the PTR uses), parts kit, and US parts willcost around $400-500. You can find pretty much all of that at FAC Then you build it yourself or send it off to someone like Big50HK or IGF.

Then there is the Century Arms clones. The CETME versions suffer from parts compatibility issues(You can make nearly anything from an HK work on it with some time but many parts aren't drop in), a bass ackwards safety, and a slightly less refined rear sight. But I picked mine up for under $400 with tax. The G3 clone from CAI is in the $400-500 range. CAI has some quality control issues. They are getting much better but some of their receivers are ever so slightly out of spec in some spots(often in the magwell or mag latch areas). And they are mating random surplus parts together so the rifle might run sporadically for the first 200 rounds. They usually smooth out considerably after that. This route is cheaper but you're more likely to run into a lemon. Cherry-picking can get you around this.

 

[Joe Demko]

With regard to the "battle rifle" term, I don't recall ever running into that anywhere but on gun boards. In the Army, the M-16A1 I was issued was just called a rifle. Can anybody point to a military or scholarly use of the term "battle rifle?" If it isn't an official military term or recognized scholarly term, then I don't think we need to put a torsion in our small clothes over perceived misuse of it.

 

[Swamprabbit]

My votes are for the FAL or M1A. I have/had both and really like them. I haven't shot a G3/HK91 but I used to have its .223 little brother HK93 and didn't like it. I just felt that it was too hard to stip/reassemble and clean, hard trigger, and it just didn't "fit" me.

 

[Risasi]

MBR vs. Assault Rifle; I give up.

Well Iwaldron. Looks like you have a decent list from people.

 

[Joe Demko]

Oh, and to be on topic for this thread: I have a PTR-91 from the brief period after they fixed the chamber problems but before they switched to a conventionally rifled barrel. It is an utterly satisfactory rifle and I don't think you would regret buying one. I was looking at different 7.62 NATO self-loaders at the time, and I found I liked the PTR-91 more than any of the FAL's I handled or the M-14 clone I previously owned.

 

[ny32182]

When I was going through this decision process, my choice was the FAL, in the form of a DSA SA58:



To be honest the biggest factor that did it for me was the bolt hold open on the FAL (HK 91 doesn't have one). Also, the charging handle on the HK91 is about as un-user friendly as can be.

As for the rest of my personal opinions: sights are nothing to write home about on either but slightly better on the FAL; triggers are not great on either but slightly better on the FAL; I'm not sure how to break down the HK91 for cleaning, but getting the bolt and carrier out of a FAL is a process that takes 5 seconds on a slow day. Mags are dirt cheap for both (M14 mags are like $50 each... ouch. You can get at LEAST 5 FAL or HK91 mags for that much). My only gripe about the FAL, being a lefty, is that the selector gets in the way of my grip, but I'm working on reaching around it to the trigger. The FAL uses a very nice fully adjustable gas system, while the HK91 uses the delayed roller locking system (recoil operated). There are advantages and disadvantages to both. If you plan to reload, get a FAL, as the HK91 is known to destroy the brass.

I'd actually like to own both, and may be in the market for a PTR-91 in the summer.

Also, I'm always on the hunt for a lefty-friendly FAL selector (not even left handed, just out of the way of my grip when in the semi position). If I could find one, this rifle would be perfect for me.

 

[Feanaro]

If you plan to reload, get a FAL, as the HK91 is known to destroy the brass.

A port buffer can be installed and reloading can be done as normal. The buffer costs about $40.

 

[ny32182]

A port buffer can be installed and reloading can be done as normal. The buffer costs about $40.

What sort of device is this? I thought the damage to the brass was mostly done by the fluting in the chamber. Does it fill in the fluting somehow?

 

[Joe Demko]

The port buffer keeps the brass from being damaged by being slammed against the ejection port. The flutes don't damage the brass. The flute marks on the brass from my PTR-91 are just soot.

 

[AZ Jeff]

The Ejection Port Buffer for the HK G3 series rifles does lessen the damage to the brass for reloading purposes, but there are other considerations that need to be taken into account when reloading for these delayed blowback rifles:

1. Use hard brass. Most commercial brass is softer than military brass. Use of soft brass results in the flutes in the chamber engraving themselves firmly into the brass, thus shortening it's life.

2. Case head swelling can occur if the load uses slow burning powders. The breech unlocks on a roller locked system INDEPENDENT of burn rate. Thus, if slow burning powders are used, the breech "unlocks", and the bolt begins moving rearward, while chamber pressures are still pretty high.

Even following these two guidelines, expect brass to survive only about 3 to 4 reloadings.

 

[Feanaro]

What sort of device is this? I thought the damage to the brass was mostly done by the fluting in the chamber. Does it fill in the fluting somehow?

The damage to the brass is done by the violent ejection system and being bent in half by smashing the brass against the lip of the receiver. The flutes can "impress" themselves into thinner brass. But otherwise no damage is done by the flutes, just some soot. Some people mistake that for damage. A buffer is just that, it buffers the lip on the ejection port. Otherwise the brass ends up all mangled. And it reduces the lethality of the ejecting brass.

Even following these two guidelines, expect brass to survive only about 3 to 4 reloadings.

I have heard plenty of people caution no more than 10, 8, or 6 reloads. But not 3. Seem kinda low to me. I don't reload though, so I can't say much.

 

[AZ Jeff]

My experience is that when the flutes leave their impressions in the brass, the sizing die does NOT completely remove them.

The end result is that the brass can be resized to fit the (relatively loose) chamber of the G3-type rifle, but it will NOT fit in most other rifles.

I used to have to segregate my brass for my HK-91 from that used in my M1 and FAL for this reason.

 

[Risasi]

One of my '91's does mangle the brass where the fluting marks are if I use most .308. And the ding in the neck is not pretty. The CETME just rips the heads right off. Maybe I should name it Ozzie.

Both of them put a lovely stinking dent in the neck, regardless of soft 308 or NATO. If you look at the shot brass on end, from the neck side facing you the neck is "D" shaped. In my opinion not worth messing with. Fearnaro, I'll have to look at that buffer.

ttadboy,

You're a lefty right? That was the main reason I went with the HK, even though there is no hold open the charging handle is very easy for me to reach over with my right hand both pull and slap. That way I can keep the butt mounted against my shoulder, and grip in my left hand. How do you do it with a FAL?

 

[Tony Williams]

I don't believe that either of the terms 'assault rifle' or 'battle rifle' have any official backing (at least, not since the 'Sturmgewehr' was used!). However, they are convenient labels to distinguish between two different sub-types of the military rifle. At any rate, that's the way Max and I used them in our book 'Assault Rifle'

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum

 

[redneck2]

Jeez...

didn't mean to get "snippy"

I'm not military or military rifle guy. Silly me.....I thought if you carried a rifle into battle as your primary weapon, it would be a battle rifle. My mistake

Edit to add: If you look back at the post, my personal choice would be the AR-10. I've got 2 friends that have them. Light, quite accurate. Then again, I'm not into the military rifle thing, I'm more into "user friendly". I'm not planning on going off to war this week

 

[ny32182]

You're a lefty right? That was the main reason I went with the HK, even though there is no hold open the charging handle is very easy for me to reach over with my right hand both pull and slap. That way I can keep the butt mounted against my shoulder, and grip in my left hand. How do you do it with a FAL?

With the FAL I actually do it in much the same way as I do it with an AR (if I'm trying to change mags quickly, which doesn't happen nearly as often with the FAL). I grab the empty mag, hit the mag catch, and rotate it out with my right had in one motion. Then I grab the new mag and rock it in with my right hand. Then I hit the bolt catch with my trigger finger to chamber a round.

This lets me do it without removing my left hand from the grip, and also ensures that there is no finger on the trigger while a new round is being chambered.

 

[444]

This whole thing about defining the term "battle rifle" and "assult rifle" seem to come up in each and every one of these threads.
In one of these threads I posted that I first heard these terms defined in the early 1980s in a book written by Chuck Taylor. In this book, the term battle rifle is used to define a military rifle that fires a full sized rifle cartridge. The 7.62 Nato, or .30-06 or 8mm Mauser or 7.62x54R are examples of battle rifle cartridges.
The term assult rifle defined a military weapon that fires an intermediate powered round (not a battlerifle cartridge, not a submachine gun cartridge). This goes along with the thinking of the Germans and Russians toward the end of WWII in which they decided that the perfect military rifle should be effective out to about 300 meters and be capable of select fire. The 7.62x39 and 5.56 Nato are examples of assult rifle cartridges.
A submachine gun fires a pistol cartridge. 9mm Luger and .45 ACP are examples.

For the last 20 years or so I though these terms were useful and aided in communication. I use them and see no reason not to.

 

[Joe Demko]

I see no reason not to use them. I also see no reason to create a whole new version of the clip v. magazine pissiness when someone else is perceived as misusing the term. 'Til the military itself recognizes the term battle rifle it is just a hobbyist term of convenience and no more.

 

[Sven]

Why not 'start' with the M1A which you can own now and start training on, and consider other options when possible?

 

[444]

"'Til the military itself recognizes the term battle rifle it is just a hobbyist term of convenience and no more."

And ?
We are hobbyists. So, it only makes sense to use hobbyist terms. It also makes good sense.
The clip vs. magazine problem is valid. They are two entirely different things. Just because someone finds it convienient to use the wrong word to describe something doesn't make it the right thing to do, and it also doesn't mean that everyone else involved in the conversation have to just let it go. I don't understand why people can't be expected to use the correct word if they know what the correct word is. Do I make mistakes ? Sure I do. Do I purposely continue to make them after it has been pointed out to me that I was wrong ? Not if I can help it.

 

[Joe Demko]

Other than 45 vs 9mm debates, more anger has blossomed over the clip/magazine thing than any other gun-related topic I can think of. I don't care if you want to call it a battle rifle or a fuzzy bunny gun. What I am saying is that we don't need one more thing over which to have pissing contests. Right here in this thread we already had somebody get a hitch in his knickers over "misuse" of the term. Call it what you want. Don't sniffily correct some other hobbyist for applying it where you don't think it fits.

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

My fuzzy bunny gun doesn't use clips or magazines--it uses resplendant sugar boxes.

 

[Risasi]

Oh this is ridiculous. Okay. Let's quit talking about "battle rifle" vs. "assault rifle".

At least in this thread. Hopefully nobody scared the original poster away from this forum...

 

[lwaldron]

Scared?

Naw, I'm not scared away.
Actually, when I asked about a "MODERN battle rifle", I was indeed curious about pistol-gripped, detachable-magazine military rifles designed (more or less) after WWII, firing a full-power cartridge.
Among other weapons, I own an M-1 Garand and an SVT-40. I like them both just fine, but I'd really to own something a little more contemporary.
Since I've been shooting these 2 semi-auto battle rifles, I've become much impressed by the power of the cartridge. Shooting 7.62x39 through my SKS just seems kinda wimpy, now. It's like, where's the beef?
Of course, by the time I make it out of California, all the cheap milsurp .308 will be gone, so maybe I should just limit my dreams to an AK-47 clone.

 

[artherd]

The ultimate .308 MBR would have to be the Knight's Armament (commonly called SR25).

While I share your affection for the KAC SR-25, I do not know that I would characterize it as a 'battle' rifle.

I would call it something like a high percesion automatic rifle instead.

It's tollerances are just too tight to throw it in the mud and the like. It commands to be treated as the precision instrument it is. That said, it sure can take a bit of a beating as well, relatively speaking. (strong reciver forgings, etc.)

It is a fantastic precision weapon, and worth it's price tag. I want one, big time. I would want a garden variety 'loose' M-16 at hand as well though