Battle Rifles? Too Much?

[amprecon]

I don't just like the .308win, I love it. I also like the reliability of military rifles chambered in that round.

What I have discovered about the .308 is that to get the most out of the cartridge the rifle should be scoped. The .308 is capable of reaching out there and magnification helps identify targets better at those ranges which increases your ability to hit those far away targets.

Regarding semi-automatic military rifles that use that caliber, they are comparatively long and heavy. Begin adding any sort of optic on it, not to mention any kind of quality mount, and the weight starts building up fast. Not only does the weight increase quickly, any added optics tends to disrupt the balance of these rifles as well. Those that must have the military style .308 rifles but don’t want the long size of the standard rifles opt for shorter barreled versions. As most of us know, shorter barrels result in decreased velocity and increase muzzle flash and report.

Sporting semi-auto rifles such as Remington's 750, Browning's BAR and Benelli's R1 boast weights equal to or lighter than many sporting bolt-action rifles. It cannot be argued that some have very reliable systems, but nonetheless are more complex than a bolt-action rifle.

So I have decided that since I must have some sort of scope on a .308 caliber rifle, that the total weight of the rifle cannot exceed 8.5lbs. This is just my personal number, a weight I feel comfortable carrying around all day long up and down mountains and through thick brush. Anything heavier and I begin to feel fatigued more quickly.

I know people will say to work out and build up your endurance and muscle strength so the weight of the rifle won’t matter. That may be true to some extent, but I am not a body-builder, I am a rifle shooting hunter, so I must pick a rifle that I am comfortable carrying all day long in my current physical condition.

I believe I don’t need a “Battle Rifle”, I believe that the .308 is better from a lighter non-military style rifle. For “Battle”, I believe the intermediate caliber rifles are better suited as their effective range does not have to be that of the .308. If I were unfortunate enough to be involved in any sort of battle, I would not grab a military style .308 rifle, or any .308 caliber rifle for that matter. I would grab one of the intermediate caliber rifles as they are smaller, lighter, have less recoil and muzzle flash and usually carry more ammunition.

So I am planning to change up my rifles when I get home, to have a more applicable selection.

 

[conhntr]

I sure the people you would on the other side of the battle would appreciate you chosing a light round.

 

[StrawHat]

Judging from your location, you don't get much say in what cartridge you use. However, your post is well written and thought out. When I used samll bore rifles, I gravitated away from the 30s and ended up using a couple of Swedish Mausers as much for the action as the cartridge. I was also fond of the SMLE for a spell but the Swedish Mauser became the one I'd grab for hunting and a short Swede is the one I rebuilt along the lines of the Cooper Scout Concept.

Good luck to you and make it home.

 

[rocinante]

Let me see if I follow. You love the 308 but feel it must be scoped and the whole rig weigh less than 8.5 lbs to lug around. Then you conclude you have no use for a 308 and would be better off with a smaller lighter round i.e. the same conclusions most militaries have come up with.

If I was to lug a rifle and ammo around everyday and get into firefights I might be into your intermediate arguments but no more than I hunt I don't mind lugging around something that puts some heavier lead down the barrel. If I hit it I want a better chance it stays down.

 

[amprecon]

No, I have use for the .308, just not for a "Battle Rifle". I do plan to trade out my "battle rifle" for a scoped .308 bolt-action.

I don't use any firearms here where I work, but if I did, considering what is available here, I would choose a .308 over the .223.

When I talk about intermediate calibers, I am referring to 7.62x39 and 6.8spc.

 

[68wj]

Your narrative is exactly the reason why many shooters, especially hunters, are switching to AR15's chambered in cartridges such as the 6.5G, 6.8 SPC, and some of the new(ish) .223 based .30 calibers.

How far do you shoot, what is your target, what is the terrain, etc. are questions that you need to ask. I went through the steps and ended up with a 6.8 SPC carbine with a nice trigger and optic. I couldn't be happier with the results. At the maximum distance that I would ever need to shoot (~300 yards), it is extremely accurate and most any of the ammo selections maintain sufficient energy for deer/hog and exceed the minimum expansion velocity for the bullet.

Good luck with your selection.

 

[W.E.G.]

I must have some sort of scope on a .308 caliber rifle, that the total weight of the rifle cannot exceed 8.5lbs.

There's your answer then.
You need a lightweight-model, bolt-action rifle with a buggy-whip barrel and limited magazine capacity.
Which is fine for hunting.

Not like you're going to be doing much battlin' with a "battle rifle" back in the U.S. anyway unless you owe money to a drug gang -- in which case its just a question of how soon you're gonna die. Won't much matter what hardware you're packing.

Most shootouts here still occur at bad-breath distance.
You're never gonna have any rifle in those situations.

 

[Skyshot]

Here's an option for you. This is my Stevens Model 200 in .308 I have used for several years now. It has a Bushnell Elite 3x9x40 and I installed a timney trigger that breaks at 1 1/2 lbs. I have also done some extra bedding to the stock which does have factory pillars in it. This rifle shoots sub MOA with several factory loads as well as my reloads. Let me say that I have beat the crap out of this thing over the years and it has performed flawlessly. The rifle weighs just over 6 lbs. and I paid around $300.00 for the rifle new.

 

[Unistat]

OP, I believe that you have described the exact requirements that led Col. Cooper to conceive the Scout Rifle. That said, the Ruger Gunsite Scout weighs seven pounds with no optic.

 

[Sheepdog1968]

I'd suggest keeping the 308 semi auto you own. They are fun from time to time. I'd then save up for your bolt action and for a 223 semi auto. Then you have choices on what to take out.

 

[briansmithwins]

The OP has discovered the problem that led to the M14 having the shortest issue life of any US rifle since the Krag: If you spec a full power, .30 cal cartridge, you get a heavy, long rifle. That rifle will have excess recoil and break parts if you try to make it too light.

The minimum size of a self loading weapon is dictated by the length ofnthe cartridge and the power of that cartridge. 7.62 NATO is a big round with lots of power. That means you must use a long receiver that robustly built to handle that cartridge.

The Germans (and Federov before them) realized that by using a cut down rifle cartridge (8mm Kurz or 6.5 Jap) they could make a smaller, lighter weapon that was durable enough to keep working, and usable in full auto.

BSW

 

[henschman]

8.5 lbs. is tough for a scoped semi .308, but I think it could be done with some sort of M-14 platform, using one of the lighter weight stocks.

SAI has started putting their new production M1A's in their own plastic stocks, which are considerably lighter weight than GI fiberglass or wood. I have a 22" barreled Standard M1A in one of these stocks, and it weighs 8.4 lbs. unloaded with an ARMS #18 scope mount.

Now I know this is already almost to your weight limit, even without a scope, but the ARMS mount I use is solid steel. There are lighter weight aluminum mounts out there that might let you stay under your limit if you used a pretty light weight scope as well.

Also, if you wanted to shave some more lbs., you could go with an 18" barreled rifle in this same stock. According to SAI's website, their 18" barreled Scout model is 1.2 lbs. lighter than the Standard. So with my same stock and scope mount setup, a Scout ought to weigh about 7.2 lbs... which would leave plenty of room to add about any optic you want and still make your weight requirement.

Also, a Scout comes from the factory with a forward optic mount clamped to the barrel, which you would remove if you were using a receiver mount like mine... that would shed several more ounces.

Another option is the FN SCAR 17. The 16" barreled model weighs 7.91 lbs., and the 20" barreled one weighs 8.23 lbs. (as per FN's website). That is the only other .308 semi that I know of that would be capable of meeting your weight requirements.

Man, now you got me thinkin about an 18" barrel for my M1A! A 7.2 lb. rifle is awful tempting... and it would work real nice with a suppressor. Hmm, you may have inadvertently made a sale for Criterion Barrels!

 

[BrocLuno]

I can see the reasoning behind the discussion. I also think that for the weight you want, it'll be a bolt gun with alloy parts. Something made by Cooper might fit the bill. Light weight tough optics are pricey. Same for mounts.

If you want to go auto, I suggest an M1 Garand barreled to 308 (NATO Config) with an Ultimac rail and a light fixed power LER optic. With a synthetic stock and all iron removed that does not absolutely need to be there, you might get it down to the weight limit? The cool thing is you can start with a CMP mix-master as a basis and get to what you want with help. It should not be a budget buster?

 

[Elbert P . Suggins]

I have an M1a rifle with walnut stock with a 20 round mag. I mounted an Aimpoint on it yesterday and added a cloth cheek riser and it weighs 13 lbs+. I know the M1 Garand I have weighs darn near the same maybe a little less. The greater generation packed that weight in WW2 with 80 rounds around their waste and beat two super powers. I am 64 and stubborn as hell but it is my belief that some us males are turning into girly men when they complain that any rifle over 9 lbs. is "too heavy". In my opinion, the 308 is the greatest and best caliber available to our military today. Even better than the 30-06. Flatter and faster. In any war our guys could still win with even a semi auto 308. A .223 is still a .22 cal varmint rifle.

 

[briansmithwins]

In my opinion, the 308 is the greatest and best caliber available to our military today.

I'm sure you're glad that so many armies across the world agree with you that soldiers are best served with a .30 full power cartridge.

Just refresh my memory, who has adopted a .30 cal full power rifle since the G3 and FAL came out?

BSW

 

[Elbert P . Suggins]

briansmithwins,I have no idea what a G3 is and I don't like the looks of a FAL. I'm just saying that, in my opinion, the greatest battle rifle ever to be available would be the Springfield M1a in Semi-auto. I mounted an Aimpoint on mine but the iron sights on the M1a don't get any better. Aperture sights for young guys should be the only selection. I have good eyes at my age because I fly and have had to update with cataract surgery and all the BS. The red dot was added for twilight shooting.

 

[briansmithwins]

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.

I was just pointing out that no army in the world agrees with that opinion.

BSW

 

[68wj]

The greater generation packed that weight in WW2 with 80 rounds around their waste and beat two super powers.

It is a tired argument and the enemy didn't have AK's, but even more obsolete rifles than they knew they should have (thankfully). A Garand in 5.56 probably would have been even more effective due to more than doubling the amount of ammo available. Would a .30-06 be any more effective against a pill box, stone built cities, or unarmored troops in the open?

It isn't about lightening things because we can't carry the weight, it is about being just as strong, and being able to destroy the enemy even faster and more decisively.

 

[Elbert P . Suggins]

68wj, tell that to just about every one of my nam veteran friends who would have rather have had an M14 and they would have kept it in on semi-selector setting. Full auto it was not accurate. Punch and accuracy is what we agree on. That is why it is such a great battle rifle.

 

[briansmithwins]

Not that our guys in VN had much choice about the selector setting, since the selectors were hardly ever issued.

Accuracy and punch aren't that useful when your firefights are happening at 5m, in a jungle, in the dark.

BSW

 

[DeMilled]

Not that our guys in VN had much choice about the selector setting, since the selectors were hardly ever issued.

Accuracy and punch aren't that useful when your firefights are happening at 5m, in a jungle, in the dark.

BSW

Yes, but the ability to shoot through trees up to medium size sure is an asset.

I am a fan of the FAL and subscribe the the Rhodesian Light Infantry method of "Killing Cover" I.E. putting a few rounds through anything someone may be hiding behind.

 

[68wj]

68wj, tell that to just about every one of my nam veteran friends who would have rather have had an M14 and they would have kept it in on semi-selector setting. Full auto it was not accurate. Punch and accuracy is what we agree on. That is why it is such a great battle rifle.

Which part? Making things better to destroy the enemy, or that the argument that we won WWII with a heavy semi rifle against a foe that used heavy bolt actions is not a good reason to unnecessarily burden out troops?

Please don't get hung up on the cartridge I used in the post. I agree that 5.56 is more a varmint cartridge than what I would like to see used. I don't think a heavy .30 cal is the answer either.

 

[henschman]

There is certainly a compelling argument for conventional militaries using something light and short-ranged like 5.56 carbines, when the grunts are supported by crew served weapons and air support, and when they are mostly acting in a counter-insurgency capacity; it also makes sense for police use (which is how a lot of the military is being used in in the types of "police actions" we have been getting involved in).

But if any of us civvies ever wind up having to exercise our 2nd Amendment duties and go to battle (god forbid), the tables will be turned, and we will be playing the insurgent.

What works best for conventional militaries and law enforcement is not necessarily what would work best for 2nd Amendment purposes. In a 2A situation, it would usually be idiotic to purposefully close with the bad guys and engage in close quarters combat with your urban carbine... you've seen how that works out for the hajis that try this overseas, and the guys who try to go up against the SWAT team. The one advantage we might have is the ability to pick when and where we set ambushes -- and whenever possible it would be wise to attack from outside the max effective range of the average 5.56-armed bad guy, drop a few of them, and high tail it before their backup flanks you or before they call in the big guns. So you would want something a bit longer-ranged, which has plenty of punch at the more intermediate ranges, and is capable of staying lethal through common cover like unarmored vehicles and masonry. Of course there are intermediate calibers that have similar or even better effectiveness at distance than the old 7.62x51 -- but none of them are widely used military calibers for which you can currently buy cheap surplus ammo by the crate-load. So unless you are set up to hand-load a stockpile of thousands of rounds of .260 Rem or whatever, I think the old thurty cal battle rifle is still the best option for the 2A role... that and maybe a good long range precision rifle.

That's my 2 cents anyway.

 

[amprecon]

I don't know about a Garand in .223, but a Garand in .276 Pedersen would've been nice

My .308 "Battle Rifle" is a Rock River Arms LAR-8, and although it is a nice rifle, were I ever involved in any kind of gun-battle, it would not be the first rifle I would grab.

I would probably grab my RRA LAR-6 6.8spc first, the SLR-95 second. The only reason I would ever consider the .308 for a fight would be if it were the only rifle I had at the time.

So my .308 rifle will be confined to hunting or long range shooting, neither of which really justifies the extra weight and complexity of the LAR-8 or other full-size battle rifle for my intended uses.

 

[henschman]

I don't know about a Garand in .223, but a Garand in .276 Pedersen would've been nice

Ain't that the truth. And an M-14 in that caliber would have been pretty good too, or a .280 FAL.

But you are right that for the roles of hunting and long range precision, there is no reason to go with a semi auto and every reason to go with a bolt action.