Ar-10, DPMS lr308, Remington SR25, are nice rifles. I didn't want to like them because they have aluminum recievers and look like an AR-15.
I like the steel M14/M1A guns. Plus they don't look all tactical while being very capable at short and long range, and if you want them to look or handle like something tactical you could put them in an EBR mod 0 stock.
While appreciateing the FAL and G3, proven military designs that can withstand a lot of abuse and are well made steel firearms as well.
The FNAR is a high quality accurate rifle based on the BAR, but it also has too many small parts in it for my liking, and combined with not having proven itself rugged in large scale military use is less of a proven design under potentially hard use.
But the AR-10 style is actually very nice. The design with the bore, bolt, and buffer tube going straight back in the stock results in minimal side to side or up or down movement during cycling compared to many other .308 semi autos. Muzzle rise is greatly reduced and the sight picture less disturbed.
Not enough difference in .223 to matter in semi auto, but in .308 it makes a difference with the increased mass of the cycling bolt.
308 seem a lot more tame and manageable than it should or than it does in other rifles of similar weights in the caliber.
Then the majority manage to be more accurate than even many M1As.
With tiny groups once dialed in. While being cheaper to maintain.
Accurate and simplier recoil. Hard to fault.
I still don't like the looks. I like a tactical looking firearm some times like at the range, but I also like to be able to look like some fudd other times. Looking like a fudd gives you more benefit of the doubt when you run into people hunting, transporting, open carrying a short distance, or if you ever defended yourself, etc
It keeps people more at ease, even when just as capable or more capable than a tactical black looking rifle with things coming off at abrupt angles.
You have your traditional looking rifle out at the campsite and it blends in, even in more left leaning states. A few people might give it a look but won't freak out if nothing intimidating is being done with it.
While with the AR you always get that scary rifle reaction and no slack from people or law enforcement.
Also even if you do like AR-15s, the .308 AR-10 types look so similar the average person will probably just think it is an AR-15/m16, and not a different firearm altogether. It certainly isn't unique looking and people won't even know what you got unless you tell them or they get close or hear the discharge. So they won't appreciate the difference and lump it in as just another guy with an AR-15 unless they are a firearm person.
Its kinda like another Glock. But for function they are quite nice.
As for 'assault rifle', that is a real term that meant a selective fire weapon using an intermediate (weaker than standard) rifle cartridge.
This is an important distinction because the whole development was to sacrifice power on semi auto or at range to gain something that was more controllable in full auto (modern use in the US armed services notwithstanding.)
Compare that to a 'Battle Rifle' which would be something in a full power cartridge, in semi or select fire. These were the m14/FAL in NATO forces.
They are not as controllable in full auto, but are more powerful and have greater range and effectiveness per round while still being quite manageable in semi-auto, with the select fire more of an option for really close range rarities. Today such things tend to be limited more to the designated marksman role, and a few other roles, rather than the standard arm.
'Assault Weapon' on the other hand is a political term that means a lot more. It does include ARs and AKs as people imagine, and similar looking rifles, but also many shotguns and handguns too. It also expands to include new things at various times.
So it doesn't even mean tactical weapon, or tactical rifle. In CA a 1911 with a threaded barrel is an 'Assault Weapon'.
It is a loose term with varying definitions that change and bring different things within the umbrella of the scary term the average joe thinks they understand.
So people would normally say battle rifle.
It goes 8.5lbs out of the box and 9lbs 13oz with a Burris PEPR and Leupold VXR 1.25-4x. Which is no lightweight but it balances very well. Whereas all the AR-10 variants I've handled have felt overly heavy in the middle. The downside is the exorbitant cost of $2600-$2800, before the panic buying set in. The other downside are the proprietary magazines, which were $50 apiece before Chicken Little declared that the sky was falling.
