M1A VS Sig 716 VS SCAR 17s VS FN FAL

[Browning]

Looking at Springfield M1A's, Sig. 716, SCAR 17s, FN FAL and Ruger sr 762.

Out of those you have listed I'd pick the FAL. It's battle tested, accurate, ergonomics are good and parts and mags are common and are fairly affordable (not as affordable as the dirt cheap H&K G3 parts and mags, but okay). Buying good quality ammo is a goal we should all aspire to, but if the various panics have taught me anything it's that good quality ammo might not be around unless it's already stored in your closet.

Back to the rifles though.

• The assorted manufacturers of the various .308 AR-10's can't even get it together and come to some sort of agreement upon which mags to use, much less parts.

Besides the RRA LAR-8 that I used to own (bought it from my father-in-law to try out, used it for a few hogs, some target shooting and a mini torture test) the .308 AR's I've had the most contact with have been the DPMS and then the Armalite. My friends and family who've gone with the DPMS haven't had very good luck at all. The ones I've seen and shot if run dirty and used hard they'll start to stutter and they've occasionally broken (the firing pins, extractors and then their pins seem particularly prone towards breakage). Never had that issue with the FAL's, the M1A, the H&K/PTR's, the BM-59 or the .308 Garands I own or have owned.

The Armalites seem to be a mixed bag. Some are amazingly reliable and others not so much. Mags on the Armalite are overpriced though.

The shooters that seem to have had the most success are the ones who are testing it from their closet (meaning they aren't shooting them much) or who are using it for hunting. Going to the range or deer lease, shooting a few boxes prior to going out, shooting several hogs or a deer, cleaning it and then back into the closet it goes. That's how I used that LAR-8 for the most part.

I haven't tried or owned one of the LMT's, the La Rue's or the Noveske's .308 AR's. Maybe you have to go with something like that if you expect it to run well despite being rode hard and put up wet.

• The SCAR 17s are unreasonably expensive, same goes for their mags and parts. Seriously. $2500 to $3000 just buys you the rifle. It's barrel assembly (to change out the barrel) is $999 to $1279. Buying a lot of 4 SCAR 17 mags and you're looking at $164.99 (New FAL mags are $18-20 a pop, new in wrapper H&K surplus G3 mags are $3 a pop...no, that's not a typo, $3/three dollars per magazine). Forget all that. It's not really my way to bag on the purchases made by friends, so I just told my buddy that it was very nice but that I didn't feel that it was worth the money. For that amount of money he could have gotten an FAL and a Trijicon TA-11.

• The Sig 716 is nice, but with the FAL from DSA being several hundred dollars less in price there's not much point in getting one of those instead of an FAL.

• The Springfield M1A is the other alternative to the FAL and I liked mine, very accurate. The mags cost a bit more though. To me the ergonomics of the M1A aren't quite as good as with the FAL and scoping it made the package feel awkward. So out of the two I'd still go FAL, it's still a good rifle though.

• Don't know anything about the Ruger SR-762, so I can't say much about it. All the other .308 semi options that are out there I either own or have owned in the past (DSA and Imbel FAL's, H&K 91, JLD PTR-91, Springfield M1A, Beretta BM-59, RRA LAR-8, Tanker Garand) or at least shot a fair number of times (Sig 716 and the SCAR 17s). Can't say the same about the Ruger. They aren't that popular in Texas I guess, only ever seen one in a shop once.

So out of your list I'd definitely go with an FAL (DSA, my IMBEL while reliable had some vertical stringing) and if you were looking at the SCAR 17s and have the money I'd also get a TA-11 ACOG, 20+ mags, several thousand rds and a rifle class to go wring it out.

 

[macgrumpy]

My favorite is the M1A, it's a simple design with large robust parts that don't break easily which makes it dependable and very tolerant of bad field conditions. Compared to the FAL the M1A shoots smoother - I love the FAL but it always feels like somebody is pounding it with a hammer when you fire it. The SCAR is a beautiful weapon but it feels bulky and awkward to me.

I have several M1As but I mostly use my SOCOM 16 for everyday field use and the Loaded model for medium to long range target shooting. Both have been modified with aftermarket stocks which is very important if you want to improve accuracy. Of all the versions available from Springfield their SOCOM CQB looks like the best choice if you want to just buy it and shoot it but my setup is lighter and their short top rail is still junk. The Scout model is a nice compromise in length plus it's easier to find over-the-counter ammo that works accurately, that's one problem with the SOCOM, to get the best accuracy you need to hand load for it or stick with lighter bullet weights (150gr or less).

My SOCOM weighs a little over 7 lbs with a scope on it, the Loaded model weights something over 20 lbs. The SOCOM has a scout scope on it but you can also mount a standard scope to it just as my Loaded model has. Mounting a scope on the M1A isn't difficult if you know what you are doing, nowadays there are both side mounts and top rails that can be installed. The price of these rifles has skyrocketed over the last few years and it doesn't get any easier to deal with when you add stocks, scopes, bipods, etc. My SOCOM as it sits would cost around $2500 in today's dollars ( I spent about $1200 total setting it up a few years ago) and the Loaded model is probably around $4500 nowadays.

My two working rigs


A better view of the SOCOM with it's various optics


I use quick release rings with a Nikon scope on my SOCOM and depending on the situation I can remove the optic in a couple of seconds while in the field. I chose the scout style scope setup because I expect to use the rifle for short ranges most often. The scope setup helps accuracy in close/fast shooting situations (like a deer or an elk jumping up and running in the trees) but the rifle itself will shoot very accurately out to at least 400 yards. I've actually tested it's accuracy out to that range but I'm confident that with my 168gr TTSX hand loads I can shoot paper out to at least 600 yards, for deer and elk I'd probably limit myself to 300 yards.

 

[boricua9mm]

All of the rifles listed, except possibly the Sig, are all to one degree or another battle tested.

I would have to disagree. Springfield M1As are not battle tested, although Uncle Sugar's old mil-spec M14s certainly have been. What Springfield is selling at this point in time is a potpourri of Asian and US commercial spec components. They really aren't the same as an older M1A that would be filled with actual mil-spec parts.

SIG's 716 has been rifle with problems, and the Czech Army cancelled their contract for them after barrel life and functional issues reared their ugly heads. I guess we could say it is Military tested, but failed.

The SCAR 17 is definitely the winner here, as they have been proven in combat and offer significant weight savings over everything else, while retaining accuracy suitable for DMR type applications and allowing both suppressed and unsuppressed use without the need for modifications. Expensive? Oh yeah. Leading edge always costs more than bleeding edge technology.

If we use "FN FAL" in a Christian sense, then sure, those Fabrique Nationale rifles have more than earned their reputation. We cannot, however, automatically extend that same badge of honor to DSAs and kit builds for the very same reasons as the M1A. A real FN is now north of $2500, so if we are okay with that price point, then the SCAR 17 is not out of reach.

I don't know that anyone can seriously look at Ruger's 7.62 as a combat proven rifle. Like the FN FAL, we cannot extend the success of guns such as the the Knight's SR25 and LMT MWS to just any old AR10 type gun. Their similarities come to an abrupt end once we get passed the traditional AR layout.

 

[agtman]

All of the rifles listed, except possibly the Sig, are all to one degree or another battle tested.

I would have to disagree. Springfield M1As are not battle tested, although Uncle Sugar's old mil-spec M14s certainly have been.What Springfield is selling at this point in time is a potpourri of Asian and US commercial spec components. They really aren't the same as an older M1A that would be filled with actual mil-spec parts.

Agree with you on today's S.A. M1s. If I was going to get another, I'd be looking around for an older used one, with USGI parts, that was still in decent shape. The M1As I have are two late '80s models. One is a Glenn-Nelson tuned SuperMatch built with TRW parts; the other is a standard M1AE2, and it too has all USGI parts.

As far as battle-tested 7.62/.308 ARs, or at least those adopted by someone's military for combat use, there's LMT's MWS which the Brits currently have in service. It's built on the MRP platform, so the user gets switch-barrel capability to run other .308-derivative cartridges (e.g., 260Rem, 7mm-08).

I have the so-called "slickside" variant, the 7.62 LM8. Great shooter, flawless reliability. Still, it gets heavy once you start adding items to it.

 

[Robert]

You are splitting very fine hairs. The FAL design was proven solid for a great number of years before the SCAR came on the scene. Do only the actual FN FALs count or do the number of licensed copies count as well? The design has been proven in combat for many years and continues to do so. Is a DSA the same as a factory FN? No. The SCAR on the shelf is not the same as the few in the hands of soldiers. Nothing you buy at the LGS is going to be the exact same as what goes into combat. But again we are splitting very fine hairs.

I maintain that the SCAR is needlessly expensive and does nothing that the other rifles can't do at less cost. Other than allow one to say, I own a SCAR...

 

[Llama Bob]

The LMTs are heavy and arguably over-gassed, but darn if they don't get the job done and deadly accurate to boot. I'm on the 2nd barrel in mine, and in all those rounds I had one failure, and it was because of some horribly over-pressure ammo from SSA (confirmed with chrono and via bolt lift in a bolt gun) that blew a primer which then fell into the ignition components and caused a failure to ignite on the next round. I can't blame the gun for that.

I wouldn't exactly relish lugging it all over the place, but if I found myself in a situation where my life depended on a gun firing quickly, reliably functioning, hitting the target, and delivering suitable terminal ballistics then there's no gun in the world I'd rather be behind within about 700 yards.

 

[Llama Bob]

You are splitting very fine hairs. The FAL design was proven solid for a great number of years before the SCAR came on the scene. Do only the actual FN FALs count or do the number of licensed copies count as well? The design has been proven in combat for many years and continues to do so. Is a DSA the same as a factory FN? No. The SCAR on the shelf is not the same as the few in the hands of soldiers. Nothing you buy at the LGS is going to be the exact same as what goes into combat. But again we are splitting very fine hairs.

I maintain that the SCAR is needlessly expensive and does nothing that the other rifles can't do at less cost. Other than allow one to say, I own a SCAR...

My understanding is that the differences between an issued SCAR and a retail one are all to comply with the law. Otherwise the parts are 100% the same. That can't be said for the reduced cost FALs and M1As currently circulating. Those have parts of reduced strength that would not meet FN or GI specifications respectively to cut costs. The hope is that the cost cutting was done in the right place and nothing breaks on you.

I don't think that's exactly splitting a hair.

 

[Whiskey11]

My vote goes to the M14 platform rifles. If a SCAR is in your budget, you can buy a heck of a nice rifle from James River Armory or a NICE M1A from SAI and probably even touch an entry level LRB.

Really if you want to be picky about it, you could build an M14 pattern rifle to your fits. The only difficult parts are installing the barrel and chambering it. The rest of the rifle is pretty idiot proof (think AR15 without the aftermarket support) as high school kids were trained to maintain these things in the 70's.

I have an SAI M1A Loaded with about 2k rounds through it in about 8 months. It's a beast and accurate enough. Match loads print solid 1.5 MOA 10 round groups consistently and ball prints 4 MOA groups (not exactly accurate, but serviceable if things really went south). As for the reliability of the SAI variants, you still have Forged bolts, investment cast but heat treated receivers and new commercial parts. The vast majority of SAI failures I've seen have been from extractor failures and the rest are due to neglect of wear parts (springs mostly) or hot loads. An extractor is a $25 part and about ten minutes of your time to install a GI one IF yours breaks and you don't want to use SAI's warranty (lifetime!). I wouldn't hesitate to take one on a contractor mission overseas with the same spare parts I'd take with any rifle.

 

[macgrumpy]

I would have to disagree. Springfield M1As are not battle tested, although Uncle Sugar's old mil-spec M14s certainly have been. What Springfield is selling at this point in time is a potpourri of Asian and US commercial spec components. They really aren't the same as an older M1A that would be filled with actual mil-spec parts.

SIG's 716 has been rifle with problems, and the Czech Army cancelled their contract for them after barrel life and functional issues reared their ugly heads. I guess we could say it is Military tested, but failed.

The SCAR 17 is definitely the winner here, as they have been proven in combat and offer significant weight savings over everything else, while retaining accuracy suitable for DMR type applications and allowing both suppressed and unsuppressed use without the need for modifications. Expensive? Oh yeah. Leading edge always costs more than bleeding edge technology.

If we use "FN FAL" in a Christian sense, then sure, those Fabrique Nationale rifles have more than earned their reputation. We cannot, however, automatically extend that same badge of honor to DSAs and kit builds for the very same reasons as the M1A. A real FN is now north of $2500, so if we are okay with that price point, then the SCAR 17 is not out of reach.

I don't know that anyone can seriously look at Ruger's 7.62 as a combat proven rifle. Like the FN FAL, we cannot extend the success of guns such as the the Knight's SR25 and LMT MWS to just any old AR10 type gun. Their similarities come to an abrupt end once we get passed the traditional AR layout.

Seriously? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The truth is, none of weapons that we can buy nowadays is MilSpec so I submit that, according to your reasoning, none of these rifles could be considered "battle-tested".

The M1/M14 designs have been used in combat for decades and the M1A is the exact same design modified to not be capable of full auto fire - having MilSpec parts or not doesn't change anything about how the weapon functions. The idea of a part being MilSpec is of no real value to anybody except a collector. MilSpec parts aren't some kind of super part that becomes unbreakable or magical. MilSpec simply means that the parts were inspected to a very detailed standard so that multiple manufacturers could be contracted to make the parts and they would all still assemble the same way - it was just a way to improve mass production, it doesn't make the weapon work any differently or better.

Also, if having MilSpec parts is your standard for a battle rifle then the FAL or any other weapon produced by countries other than the United States doesn't have a qualified battle rifle anyways because MilSpec is a term used only in America for the production of American military equipment, if the rifle is not American made then it can not be MilSpec.

Additionally, just because a part wasn't inspected by federal inspectors doesn't mean that it's not as good or better than the equivalent MilSpec part. In fact, there are commercial companies that make parts as good or better than anything produced by the original federal government contractors.

Sorry, but the M1A is every bit as "battle-tested" as the other rifles being discussed in this thread.

 

[agtman]

The M1/M14 designs have been used in combat for decades and the M1A is the exact same design modified to not be capable of full auto fire - having MilSpec parts or not doesn't change anything about how the weapon functions.

Seriously?

I agree that current S.A./F.A. M1A's run off the "same design specs' as the original, late 1950s M14s, but that's not the issue.

The issue concerns the integrity of all of the function-critical parts that keep the rifle running: bolt, op rod, et al.

Do you really think anyone wants Chi-Com crap-metal bolts, extractors, ejectors, op rods, etc., in any M1A seeing other than light use at the range or, occasionally, in competition events?

 

[Jackal]

Lets face it, Springfield's marketing team hit a home run in the early 2000's with their booney hat wearing, camo face painted operator coming up out of the swamp water in a jungle. That single ad sold more M1A's.... But damn, did it look cool.

 

[macgrumpy]

Seriously?

I agree that current S.A./F.A. M1A's run off the "same design specs' as the original, late 1950s M14s, but that's not the issue.

The issue concerns the integrity of all of the function-critical parts that keep the rifle running: bolt, op rod, et al.

Do you really think anyone wants Chi-Com crap-metal bolts, extractors, ejectors, op rods, etc., in any M1A seeing other than light use at the range or, occasionally, in competition events?

You obviously have no real experience with the M1A rifle, if you had you would realize how silly your comment about "function-critical parts" is. I've had M1As since the 1970s, I purchased the last one around 2012 or so. I've fired tens of thousands of rounds through them over the years and I've never had a single part break except the gas valve spring on the 1975 model standard that was made from mostly MilSpec parts (including that broken spring) - oh, and I've finally worn out the barrel on that same rifle after several tens of thousands of rounds through it. The Canadians have used those junky Chinese made Norinco rifles for a long time and most experienced M1A shooters will agree that the Chinese receiver very close dimensionally to original MilSpecs than just about any other M1A receiver.

Regardless of how misguided your opinions are the fact is that many of us have used the Springfield version of the M14 for decades without any problems. I don't really care about trying to educate you about the rifle I just wanted to provide the OP with facts based on my use of these rifles for the last 40 years.

 

[Robert]

I have used commercial parts in my FAL and after multiple thousands of rounds the only part to break has been the firing pin that came with the kit. It was an, I believe, Argentinian full auto FAL and had seen who knows how many round before the upper was cut and it was sold as a kit. And even after the pin broke it continued to function for long enough for both sides of the break to polish smooth. And it still functioned flawlessly. I only discovered the broken firing pin while cleaning it on a whim one day. So, yeah, I am fine with my non military parts kit rifle. Again there is nothing wrong with the others, but Mil Spec is just a term that really only applies to the lowest bidder building rifles for .gov

99.99% of the FAL horror stories can be traced back to a Century built rifle. While some work fine most are a mix of metric and SAE parts and are total crap. I have a Century L1A1 that is just horrible... A properly built FAL, or any rifle, will be just fine.

 

[agtman]

You obviously have no real experience with the M1A rifle, if you had you would realize how silly your comment about "function-critical parts" is. I've had M1As since the 1970s, I purchased the last one around 2012 or so.

Dude, I've been shooting M1 Garands and M1As since the early 80s, to include the Nat'l Matches at Camp Perry, so don't even go there with whose stick is bigger.

The M1s and M1As are great shooting rifles, and I'd probably shoot them more than I do now if my 5.56 ARs and 7.62 LM8 weren't occupying my range and training time.

In my M1s and M1As, I run USGI spec parts. End of story. If you choose to run non-USGI bits in yours, have at it.

 

[Panzerschwein]

A proper PTR-91 GI model is no heavier and is in fact shorter than an FN FAL or Springfield M1A. Here is mine, and it is very accurate and reliable:

 

[Rockrivr1]

It all comes down personal preference. I've shot the FAL, SCAR, M1A and a RRA LAR8. They all have their plus and minus to them, but to me with the choices you've given I'd take the M1A. It balances well for me, is damn accurate and ergonomics work.

Now if you say something about how you want to scope your rifle, then the M1A goes right out the window. You can scope it, but it's just not the same rifle in that configuration.

 

[Nature Boy]

Macgrumpy, LOVE your M1As

 

[Huntolive]

Thanks

Wow, that post took on a raging life of its own pretty quick!
So I will definitely seriously consider the FN FAL/DSA FAL. Also M1A scout squad, and SOCOM, I LOVED that little skinny camo SOCOM pictured above.

What the heck is a "scout scope"?

How would i scope a DSA FAL?

Any knowledge of the Alex Pro Firearms 308 Hunter ? Its an AR 10 type

I have removed Sig and Ruger from consideration.

 

[Panzerschwein]

Wow, that post took on a raging life of its own pretty quick!
So I will definitely seriously consider the FN FAL/DSA FAL. Also M1A scout squad, and SOCOM, I LOVED that little skinny camo SOCOM pictured above.

What the heck is a "scout scope"?

How would i scope a DSA FAL?

Any knowledge of the Alex Pro Firearms 308 Hunter ? Its an AR 10 type

I have removed Sig and Ruger from consideration.

A scout scope is a low-magnification scope placed forward of the action. Popularized by Jeff Cooper for his "scout rifle" concept.

 

[RecoilRob]

A good FAL scope mount: http://www.dsarms.com/p-13098-sa58-fal-extreme-duty-scope-mount-with-brass-savr-black-bag.aspx The empty bag comes in handy if you reload and cuts down on searching time quite a bit.

I've owned the HK-91, FAL (SAR48 Israeli HB) and an old M1A...and still have the last two as I just couldn't get along with the 91 but LOVE the other two. Which would be best for you? Maybe the main decision is whether you like pistol grip or conventional rifle stocks? Whether either rifle would be more accurate and reliable comes down to the individual piece you end up getting rather than anything design related as both can be very nice shooters.

I kind of lean toward my FAL as it's just so nice and smooth shooting...though with the heavy barrel it doesn't carry nearly as well as the M1A. Recoil buffer in the FAL took a lot of the hit out of it, and getting the gas system adjusted to minimum helps too. I can't imagine a nicer shooting 7.62 Nato rifle to be honest. And I like the scope setup on it better than on the M1A...so if glass is to be used, that might be a tie breaker.

Seriously, you are in a very nice position regardless of which rifle you choose between FAL and M1A. You can't lose...and are sure to be smiling when the deal has been done.

 

[Robert]

I have a DSA scope mount top cover for my FAL and it is rock solid. I don't have it mounted at the .moment as I don't have a scope for the FAL. But keep in mind the cheek weld with the FAL stock is not great. The lower you mount the scope the better. A huge 50 or 56mm objective scope is not going to work well at all.

 

[Vector6]

i was where you were in this post 2 years ago....

I bought a Scar17 and have been more than happy with that purchase.

 

[Nature Boy]

Same here Vector, and 2 years ago I went with an M1A. The 3 rifles on the OPs list were on mine too. I'd love to have all 3

 

[Coal Dragger]

I've owned 2 M1A's over the years, the first one was made in approximately 1998, and was a good rifle. Never should have sold it. The second was made approximately 2002, and had issues with the trigger group un-hooking under recoil as the bolt moved back pressing against the hammer to cock it. Instead of cocking the entire trigger assembly would be pushed down. The chamber was also a bit rough in this rifle as well. Sent it back to SA, and they fixed it. I have to admit I had lost confidence in it by then, and sent it down the road.

If the OP wants to maximize the effectiveness of their rifle, a modern combat optic or sporting optic is a good addition. I love shooting iron sights, and shot them for all of my qualifications in the Marine Corps, but when I went to Iraq it was with an optic and there is no comparison in practical effectiveness. The optics are just faster, and allow superior field marksmanship since you can see your target and aiming point on the same apparent focal plane.

With optics in mind you have the various AR 10 pattern rifles or the SCAR, the other choices make for a tougher proposition to put glass on. They also don't have butt stocks designed for scope or red dot use with a good cheek weld, at least the basic models don't.

 

[Welding Rod]

If you are going to shoot with iron sights, a M14 clone is hard to beat. However if you go that route, I suggest you seriously consider buying something other than a SAI product.