I like the SAIGA but, the conversion parts and subsequent conversion concerns me.
Who has the best parts?
Who offers the best turn key conversion?
How do you know you're getting the best?
Do you have pictures and details of your .308 SAIGA?
Thanks ~
I Need A Battle Rifle
- Thread starter VonFireball
- Start date
- Status
I like the SAIGA but, the conversion parts and subsequent conversion concerns me.
Who has the best parts?
Who offers the best turn key conversion?
How do you know you're getting the best?
Do you have pictures and details of your .308 SAIGA?
Thanks ~
Tarvis
Member
I know a reputable dealer in the area that has had a gun shop for many years that didn't know how to detail strip an AR. Point being that experience in gunsmithing doesn't mean you know everything. Yeah, I don't have a career as a gunsmith, but how many gun stores have you gone to and been fed full of opinionated crap? A guy at a gunshop once told me that practical pistol shooting is "slow paced", gotta be kidding. I'm sure your in-law is a nice guy and knows a lot, but that doesn't remove him from being biased and doesn't make him enlightened.
But enough about your opinions, heres mine! M1A. BTW, you will most likely stir the bee's nest when you say the AR and AK platforms are unworthy as a vast majority of the users on THR have experience with one or both and for themost part like them.
MTMilitiaman
Member
Okay, this is getting beyond the purpose of discuss as intended by the OP, but briefy:
The AR...
-Feels and sounds like a cartoon in operation
-Is more suseptible to dirt and grime than competing designs, as proven by the Army's own testing.
-Has too many small parts for a combat rifle. If you've ever been cleaning your rifle in the field, had your cover get kicked or blown over, and never seen your firing pin retaining pin again, you'd know this.
-And when compared to the 7.62mm MBR that actually are the purpose of this discussion, the AR-15 has questionable stopping power/lethality. I say this because its stopping power/lethality has been questioned for its entire career. The military is never quite able to spin the results of its testing to make all the uncertainty--about the weapon's reliability relative to competing designs, nor about the cartridge's fight stopping ability--to rest.
While I found the M16 to be a decent rifle, one that I could operate and keep in operating order, it never inspired my confidence. I am from the old school, a MT country boy that's been shooting his entire life. Where I grew up, the .223 was used on ground squirrels and coyotes. My one experience with it on deer was not favorable. I grew up listening to my grandpa talk about his exploits in Korea with an M1 Garand and a BAR. I tried to give Stoner's masterpiece a fighting chance, but in the end, I much preferred a real rifle, like my M1A. So you can drink your Kool Aid, and I'll drink mine, but this topic was not ever intended to be about the AR, and we've derailed the conversation enough.
Now back to the regularly scheduled broadcast...
VonFireball
Member
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2007
- Messages
- 43
That ain't this guy, I promise
Well, he doesn't claim to be an "expert", but to him, a metallurgist/gunsmith is what he refers to as an "expert".
When did I say they were unworthy platforms?
I only stated that I wanted a battle rifle just not an AK, AR, or SKS. People thought I implied it was because I thought they were junk or something.
It simply wasn't the case. They jumped to conclusions and assumed that the person advising me was a pseudo gunsmith which I can assure you isn't the story.
Basically, I posted looking for suggestions along the FAL, G3's, Cetme's, etc. I did get a LOT of good help from a bunch of guys. A few PM's came my way that were also helpful and informative. I thank everyone for the suggestions.
From everything I hear, it's sounds like DSA or PTR-91 is the ticket for a complete gun. If I wanted to put my gunsmith to work maybe a kit from century, Imbel, or Atlantic.
Tarvis
Member
Yeah, I dunno. They did come off hard on your in-law (I thought) but oh well, free country, right? My point with the story bout the local guy was that being in the industry doesn't seclude someone from opinion, or imply the same level of experience as everyone else.
Guess you didn't; I wasn't really sure how to word it and that's what I ended up with *shrug*. Honestly, I think it comes down to prefrence once the pro's and con's are sorted out. For example, I think the G-3 is ugly and would most likely not buy one, but that's me and my opinion. I say find one at a dealer and shoulder it, best way I can think of to tell if it'll work for you.
Guess you didn't; I wasn't really sure how to word it and that's what I ended up with *shrug*. Honestly, I think it comes down to prefrence once the pro's and con's are sorted out. For example, I think the G-3 is ugly and would most likely not buy one, but that's me and my opinion. I say find one at a dealer and shoulder it, best way I can think of to tell if it'll work for you.
You know...I hope this gets this thread back on topic forever.
The OP wants a battle rifle.
The AR and AK are NOT battle rifles.
Stop trying to suggest he buy something he told you right from the get go that he doesn't want. He never explicitly said they sucked; he said they were "no good," which in the context of battle rifles, they ARE NOT. I don't care how accurate it is, what it's service history has been, how few moving parts it has, how light it is, or how great the ergonomics are, because if you took it to a battlefield with a M14, a FAL, and a G3, we all know which one would quit first. Battle rifles are supposed to be able to keep on ticking if they get dirty, something an AR won't do. And I'm not even going to include AKs in here because there's no way someone is going to make a 600 yard shot with one of those, and that's something a battle rifle should be able to do; the 7.62x39 just doesn't have the punch for that type of range.
That being said, I have to throw my hat in the FAL ring, and DSA makes a great one. Also, don't feed it wolf...sure it'll eat it up, but the steel on steel action will put undue wear on your rifle; just turn the gas to the lowest setting for reliable cycling and the brass won't be too hard to find. A buddy of mine got the DSA FAL tactical version, and I've been jealous ever since. It balances well, the trigger isn't bad, and for a battle rifle, it's a tack driver. Seriously, I was shooting the legs off of aluminum chairs at 100 yards with nothing but an aim point. Maybe his rifle is just unusually accurate, but assuming it's nothing but the run of the mill specimen, I can't see anyone being unhappy with that rifle. Oh, and did I mention $8 20 round mil surplus mags?
The OP wants a battle rifle.
The AR and AK are NOT battle rifles.
Stop trying to suggest he buy something he told you right from the get go that he doesn't want. He never explicitly said they sucked; he said they were "no good," which in the context of battle rifles, they ARE NOT. I don't care how accurate it is, what it's service history has been, how few moving parts it has, how light it is, or how great the ergonomics are, because if you took it to a battlefield with a M14, a FAL, and a G3, we all know which one would quit first. Battle rifles are supposed to be able to keep on ticking if they get dirty, something an AR won't do. And I'm not even going to include AKs in here because there's no way someone is going to make a 600 yard shot with one of those, and that's something a battle rifle should be able to do; the 7.62x39 just doesn't have the punch for that type of range.
That being said, I have to throw my hat in the FAL ring, and DSA makes a great one. Also, don't feed it wolf...sure it'll eat it up, but the steel on steel action will put undue wear on your rifle; just turn the gas to the lowest setting for reliable cycling and the brass won't be too hard to find. A buddy of mine got the DSA FAL tactical version, and I've been jealous ever since. It balances well, the trigger isn't bad, and for a battle rifle, it's a tack driver. Seriously, I was shooting the legs off of aluminum chairs at 100 yards with nothing but an aim point. Maybe his rifle is just unusually accurate, but assuming it's nothing but the run of the mill specimen, I can't see anyone being unhappy with that rifle. Oh, and did I mention $8 20 round mil surplus mags?
transformerguru
Member
the biggest thing is get what you want and can afford. If you don't want an AR, AK, or SKS its fine with me. I personally like the FAL platform for looks, but thats just me. I haven't handled too many FAL's or G3's though either.
The PTR-91 (HK-91, G3 U.S. Made Clone) I bought was a very sexy space agey looking rifle, it was built very well and the quality was great.
I bought one because it was around $800 new, it was a .308 battle rifle, and I didn't want to spend $1,200 on what I really wanted, an M1A.
The ergonomics on the HK-91, G3, PTR-91, whatever you want to call it, SUCKED, no, really, it SUCKED!
The trigger is atrocious, the operating flippy handle thingy is a pain in the arse to fold out and it was so un-natural to pull it back from near the muzzle with the left hand to charge it. I think I actually got tennis elbow from charging that thing so many times.
To utilize the safety lever you had to swivel your hand around the grip to access and actuate it. But did I mention it looked cool?
I sold it and bought what I really wanted, the M1A. No regrets except that I bought a PTR-91, HK-91, G3.......whatever they call that dang thing, in the first place :banghead:
I bought one because it was around $800 new, it was a .308 battle rifle, and I didn't want to spend $1,200 on what I really wanted, an M1A.
The ergonomics on the HK-91, G3, PTR-91, whatever you want to call it, SUCKED, no, really, it SUCKED!
The trigger is atrocious, the operating flippy handle thingy is a pain in the arse to fold out and it was so un-natural to pull it back from near the muzzle with the left hand to charge it. I think I actually got tennis elbow from charging that thing so many times.
To utilize the safety lever you had to swivel your hand around the grip to access and actuate it. But did I mention it looked cool?
I sold it and bought what I really wanted, the M1A. No regrets except that I bought a PTR-91, HK-91, G3.......whatever they call that dang thing, in the first place :banghead:
johnnyonthespot
Member
USMCDK
Member
Okay guys I haven't seen a MOD or ADMIN on this thread yet and kudo's Zangetsu for defending the OP.
However I am going to come out and say it guys especially the senior memebers.
We really need to watch what we are saying in this thread cause there are some posts that are boarderlining harrassment and other are jsut harrassing. SO cut it out or this thread will probably be locked by the MODS and I am sure the OP will not be happy about it. The same goes for you OP please becareful, I am not saying that you've really done anything wrong, it would be unwise to retaliate in any negative way to anyones post, even to defend your friend or this thread.
That's really all I have to say to everyone.
OP I hope that you find what you are looking for when it comes to a battle rifle. I understand the difference between battle and assualt rifle. Just like Zangetsu said:
Assault rifles are really made for swat like situations where as battle rifles, which could be used in swat like ops, are more targeted towards combat like what happened during WWII or even civil war era.
*SIGH* IMHO
However I am going to come out and say it guys especially the senior memebers.
We really need to watch what we are saying in this thread cause there are some posts that are boarderlining harrassment and other are jsut harrassing. SO cut it out or this thread will probably be locked by the MODS and I am sure the OP will not be happy about it. The same goes for you OP please becareful, I am not saying that you've really done anything wrong, it would be unwise to retaliate in any negative way to anyones post, even to defend your friend or this thread.
That's really all I have to say to everyone.
OP I hope that you find what you are looking for when it comes to a battle rifle. I understand the difference between battle and assualt rifle. Just like Zangetsu said:
Assault rifles are really made for swat like situations where as battle rifles, which could be used in swat like ops, are more targeted towards combat like what happened during WWII or even civil war era.
*SIGH* IMHO
MTMilitiaman
Member
Okay, to distinguish between battle rifles and assault rifles, as I know the definitions of each; battle rifles are full power rifles, assault rifles are select fire rifles chambered for intermediate power cartridges. Examples of battle rifles include the Mauser 98, the 1903 Springfield, the M1 Garand, M14, FN FAL, and G3. Examples of battle rifles include the M16, AK-47 and 74, SIG 550 series, HK G36, ect.
Assault rifles arose around the end of WWII with the Stg-44 (Storm Rifle), primarily motivated by the need to combine the close range automatic fire capability of the SMG with greater range and power. It was noted, by Marshall and others after the war, that most engagements occurred inside 300 meters, so an intermediate powered rifle cartridge was deemed appropriate as the power and associated weight and recoil of the full size rifle cartridge was not needed in most situations. Hence the 8mm Kurz, the 7.62x39 M43, and later, the 5.56x45 and 5.45x39.
So when someone says "battle rifle," I assume they are talking about full power rifles chambered for serious, full power cartridges like the 7.62x51. If someone wants to discuss ARs, they have to use proper terminology...like "poodle shooter"
Assault rifles arose around the end of WWII with the Stg-44 (Storm Rifle), primarily motivated by the need to combine the close range automatic fire capability of the SMG with greater range and power. It was noted, by Marshall and others after the war, that most engagements occurred inside 300 meters, so an intermediate powered rifle cartridge was deemed appropriate as the power and associated weight and recoil of the full size rifle cartridge was not needed in most situations. Hence the 8mm Kurz, the 7.62x39 M43, and later, the 5.56x45 and 5.45x39.
So when someone says "battle rifle," I assume they are talking about full power rifles chambered for serious, full power cartridges like the 7.62x51. If someone wants to discuss ARs, they have to use proper terminology...like "poodle shooter"
MIL-DOT
member
If i was after one "battle rifle", as much as i've wanted an M1A, i'd go with an FAL from DSA.
But that's me.
But that's me.
Rifleman 173
Member
Go with a metric FN/FAL rifle with a Millett DMS-1 tactical scope. Magazines for the metric are pretty cheap at under $10.00 each. The Millett DMS scope lets you shoot from zero out to 400 yards with a 1 to 4 power variable scope. That would really be pretty much the best combination for most shooting situations involving an MBR. It'll also make your in-law 
jealous and envious of you.
jealous and envious of you.- Status
Similar threads
