Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

M14 vs. Bar/ fnar

Discussion in 'Rifle Country' started by sprice, Sep 26, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. sprice

    sprice Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2008
    Messages:
    916
    What rifle would be cheaper and better out of these two; a customized chinese m14 build or a fnar bar platform rifle? chambered in .308 of course. What one is more accurate?
     
  2. hak

    hak Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2008
    Messages:
    134
    i was just reading threads on the 'chiCom' M14 route (then to Fulton Armory, et al, for an upgrade). not sure if that would end up more 'high end' than starting with the FNAR.

    i've handled both the reg and heavy barrel versions, the stock-shim and butt plate wedges make the stock shape combinations very nice for getting it fit 'for you'. the balance was nice, and the only ergo negative is the mag release not being as close as my current 7.62 (LR-308, AR-10 variant). otherwise it was impressive.

    plenty will say you can't go wrong with an M1A, and that's fine :) plenty of lineage in the BAR platform that runs the guts of the FNAR, but you get the accuracy and modern synthetics and easy bipod mount if you want it of the FNAR. and at my local shop, a few months back, they were under $1500.
     
  3. Winston_Smith

    Winston_Smith Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2008
    Messages:
    356
    Location:
    TX
    I would stick with the M1A/M14 route. They are riflemans rifles and parts are more available. Are you looking for an optics only rifle? I didnt see iron sights on the FNAR.
     
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2009
  4. Sunray

    Sunray Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2003
    Messages:
    11,368
    Location:
    London, Ont.
    "...customized Chinese M14 build..." Which Chinese rifle(Norinco or Polytech? Neither are currently in production) and customized by who?
     
  5. sprice

    sprice Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2008
    Messages:
    916
    used polytech by smith enterprise
     
  6. Coronach

    Coronach Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    11,109
    What's the purpose? General-use battle rifle? M14-type. DMR-style rifle with good accuracy and durability? M14-type. Semi-auto precision rifle? Not sure. The FNAR can probably hang there, and may be superior.

    Mike
     
  7. Coronach

    Coronach Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    11,109
    I believe they are, the government just doesn't think we shoudl be allowed to buy them (import ban). Also, AFAIK, Norinco=Polytech, just different names. Could be wrong.
    Warbirds, Smith, Fulton.

    Mike
     
  8. JohnMc

    JohnMc Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2003
    Messages:
    368
    Location:
    North Carolina
    One consideration: magazines.

    There's a net rumor going around the the FNAR takes AR-10 magazines. There's a lot of noise saying that's untrue, but the stuff I read doesn't indicate whether the FNAR doesn't take either kind of AR-10 magazine* or whether they've tested only one type.

    The factory mags are 80 bucks each or so! That would sway my thinking.

    *the original waffle ones, compatible with DPMS, SR-25, etc or the current Armalite ones, which are modified M-14 mags
     
  9. H2O MAN

    H2O MAN member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    2,438
    Location:
    USA

    Outstanding plan :)
     
  10. H2O MAN

    H2O MAN member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    2,438
    Location:
    USA
    Gen II ArmaLite mags are made by CMI for the ArmaLite AR-10.
    ArmaLite has not use modified M14 mags in a few years.
     
  11. JohnMc

    JohnMc Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2003
    Messages:
    368
    Location:
    North Carolina
    So that's three types of mags that have been "official AR-10"?
    Or are these CMI kind compatible with the original AR-10 from the 60's?
     
  12. sprice

    sprice Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2008
    Messages:
    916
    i have no idea how this thread has gone from a discussion on comparing rifles to magazines for a totally different gun... :banghead:
     
  13. Coronach

    Coronach Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    11,109
    :D You haven't been here long, have you? ;)

    Mike
     
  14. H2O MAN

    H2O MAN member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    2,438
    Location:
    USA
    You own an original AR-10 from the 60's?
     
  15. JohnMc

    JohnMc Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2003
    Messages:
    368
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Didn't mean to thread hijack, but >$70 mags should help someone decide. If it does use the original AR-10 mags, then these (click here) will work, at less than $20.
    Plus, it was an idle question.
     
  16. sprice

    sprice Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2008
    Messages:
    916
    your fine, haha- i was half joking.
     
  17. USASA

    USASA Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2008
    Messages:
    18
    Location:
    Washington State
    I have both. No scope = M14/M1A. With scope = FNAR.

    The FNAR out of the box will outshoot just about any M14/M1A. If for no other reason...the FNAR is built to use a scope.

    As a matter of fact...my FNAR comes close to shooting as well as my Savage 308 bolt action setup for 300/600 yard competition. Both using Federal GM Match ammo.

    Also, should add...I have had no problems getting mags for the FNAR. Cost $49.95. Mags for my M1A run right at $29.95. Not that much difference really.
     
  18. Girodin

    Girodin Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Messages:
    5,571
    If I wanted a more of a battle rifle I would go with the M14. Based on what I have seen (and it is fairly limited), I would go with the FNAR if I was simply after a very accurate semi auto.
     
  19. JShirley

    JShirley Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    20,947
    Location:
    Atlanta
    What exactly does this mean? Use this if you prefer using iron sights?

    I thought a 1903 was a rifleman's rifle, though of course the 1917 generally outshot it...

    John
     
  20. buttrap

    buttrap Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,088
    Location:
    Oregon
    I would just look a bit and get a decent Imbel FAL type gun. People do love the M-14 but its still the most huge screw up since the trapdoor at little bighorn.
     
  21. H2O MAN

    H2O MAN member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    2,438
    Location:
    USA
    Now that's funny, thank you for my morning chuckle.
     
  22. Brenjen

    Brenjen Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    35
    Location:
    arkansas
    A huge screw up? How so & IF so...what did that make the M1? A colossal failure?

    The M14 is an outstanding rifle; it's short mainstream service life was due to politics, not it's usability.
     
  23. JShirley

    JShirley Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    20,947
    Location:
    Atlanta
    The M14 is the best rifle produced 20 years too late. Despite what some apologists have said, the M14 was unsuitable for battle in the 1960s*. It would have been terrific for WWII, though it's debatable whether it would have been much better than the M1 (which it's really just a straight evolution of, anyway). Whenever deciding whether any service rifle is "good", the analyst needs to see if it makes its mission. Did the M14 make an effective and useful general issue infantry weapon in the 1960s? No? FAIL.

    Glad we could make your day, H2O. But of course trapdoor's quite correct.



    *
    Which unfortunately also means the FN-FAL/SLR/G1 was also less relevant, which of course it was because of the US forcing 7.62x51mm onto NATO. The FN-FAL and the CETME/G3 were distinctly more modular and modern designs, though of course still hampered by the US battle cartridge.
    J
     
  24. Brenjen

    Brenjen Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    35
    Location:
    arkansas
    Matter of opinion I guess, an incorrect opinion but opinion none the less. The guys I've talked to that used the weapon in combat liked it & none ever related a problem with it.

    What you say is that it failed as a useful general issue infantry weapon & that's simply not true, incorrect or whatever you want to call it. It was only a failure in so much as Colts lobbyists in Washington were successful; not because of any shortcomings with the rifle.
     
  25. DPris

    DPris Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2007
    Messages:
    4,724
    The FNAR is not intended to be a battle rifle & does not use any other mags but its own proprietary mags.
    It is very accurate. It is more complicated to break down completely for cleaning.
    The two rifles are not built for the same purpose.
    You want a battle rifle, M14. You want a precision shooter that can be user adjusted to fit the stock to your own build, FNAR.
    Denis
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page