MBR Caliber Selection

[Charles S]

Gentleman,

Let me preface this thread with the fact that I have never been in battle and I hope never to be. This is not an effort to Troll, or start a flame war, I just want your honest opinions.

I am interested in purchasing a main battle rifle and I am interested in your input. I would appreciate your thoughts and recommendations. The purpose of this thread is to get other peoples opinion on ammo and caliber effectiveness.

The calibers I am considering are 5.45X39, 5.56X45 (5.56 NATO) 7.62X39, 7.62X51 (7.62 NATO) and 7.62X63 or 30-06.

5.45X39 and 5.56 are easy to shoot, easy to carry and relatively inexpensive to train with. The 5.56 is obviously much more available than the Soviet equivalent is.

The 7.62X39 is easy to shoot and you can still carry a lot of ammo. The ammo readily available and cheap.

The 7.62 NATO is heavier, bulkier, and more difficult to shoot. The ammo is more expensive, but is readily available. Gun in this caliber tend to be heavier and recoil more, there is a more steep learning curve with calibers of this type.

The venerable 30-06. The largest and most expensive caliber. This caliber is only available in the Garand. No problem there, it is a great rifle.

Here is the dilemma, I have run across several references like the following. This is an exert form Mark Bowden’s Black Hawk Down pg 208. These are the thoughts of Delta Sergeant First Class Paul Howe during the fire fight.

“ They used to kid Randy Shugart because he shunned the modern rifle and ammo and carried a Viet-Nam era M-14 which shot a 7.62 round without the penetrating qualities of the new green tip. It occurred to Howe as he saw those Sammies keep on running that Randy was the smartest soldier in the unit. His rifle may have been heavier and comparatively awkward and delivered a mean recoil, but it d*** sure knocked a man down with one bullet, and in combat, one shot was often all you got. You shoot a guy, you want to see him go down….â€

I realize that there is more effective ammo for the 5.56 than they were utilizing, but in general the soldiers in Mogadishu were not impressed with the performance of the 5.56.

I just wanted to get your thoughts of caliber selection in you MBR.

Specific rifle questions to follow after this thread.

Thanks for your thoughts and time,

Charles

 

[natedog]

Would this be for if the poopy hits the proverbial fan? Plinking? Fun? Target shooting? What is your budget, and what rifles do you already own?

 

[Charles S]

Natedog,

I am not sure that I believe that a fecal matter hitting the rapidly oscillating air mover scenario exist in which a main battle rifle will ever be required, but I could be wrong. I do believe that it is better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.

To directly answer your question: the rifle would be a fun rifle, an informal target rifle, a rifle to utilize for some training classes and a just in case rifle.

I currently have a Mini-14, a really neat Norinco SKS that accepts AK magazines, and a SAR1 AK variant that I am happy with.

I would like to keep the rifle and magazines under $600-700, but I am willing to spend more if it is necessary. The less money I spend on a good rifle the more I can spend on ammo, and training.

Thanks for your input.

Charles

 

[DMK]

If you read Blackhawk Down, there is also a paragraph in there where a "Sammie" takes like a dozen 7.62x51 rounds and still fires back. FMJ is not always the best anti-personnel round.

If actually is an MBR that you want, you need to look at the "full power" 7.62x51/30.06 rifles such as the FAL, M14, M1A, AR10, Garand, etc. The 5.56 and 7.62x39 AK, Galil, and AR rifles rifles are not technically "Main Battle Rifles" because they shoot an "intermediate cartridge". Not to say that they aren't good combat rifles, they just aren't defined as MBRs.

Now, all that aside, what do you want from the rifle? I've got a Garand that's exceptionally accurate, completely reliable and has great sights but it's heavy and it's not recommended to shoot anything over 150gr ammo in it. I have a FAL that has an adjustable gas system so it will take heavy ammo, but it's not nearly as accurate as the Garand and it's even heavier. However, the FAL "feels like" it recoils less because of it's weight and gas system design.

I have a SAR1 AK that's very light and handy. It's also simple and easy to maintain, sort of the Volkswagon Beetle of semi-auto rifles. It also shoots cheap ammo. However, it's sights are terrible and it's not all that accurate when compared to the Garand or FAL above. I have a few SKS that are substantially more accurate, but not as handy, plus they only have a 10 round capacity (not that it's a hinderance for what I use the rifles for). I have an AR carbine that's the lightest and handiest of the bunch. Low cost milsurp grade 5.56 ammo is a little bit harder to find than the two others and it's probably the most expensive of the three. However it's very accurate and with low recoil easy to shoot. There is also a very substantial aftermarket industry for these rifles (I don't know if that's good or bad). Some folks get down on ARs for reliability but although it's my newest rifle and well mantained as all my rifles are, it hasn't had one malfunction in 500 rounds if M193 surplus.

So, what do you want from your rifle? I highly recommend all the rifles that I mentioned above, but none of these are perfect. There is no perfect firearm. Everything is a tradeoff. What tradeoffs are you looking to avoid?

If it's stopping power you want, research ammo first. Find a bullet that has the best terminal performance, then pick a rifle to shoot it.

 

[natedog]

All right, seeing that you already have something in 5.56mm and two rifles in 7.62x39mm, I'd go for the 7.62 NATO. Many people speak very highly of FALs, but they are usually about $900 for a good one from DSA. Why not a G3 or CETME clone? The magazines are about $2-$10, the rifle is between $300-$400, and the surplus ammo is very reasonable, about $100 for 1000 rounds. Plus, there are tons of optics and accessories.

 

[DMK]

I would like to keep the rifle and magazines under $600-700, but I am willing to spend more if it is necessary.

You could buy a CMP Garand, a whole bunch of clips and a couple cases of ammo and still have some change left over.

I currently have a Mini-14, a really neat Norinco SKS that accepts AK magazines, and a SAR1 AK variant that I am happy with.

I agree with Natedog, you already have a couple good intermediate rifles.

BTW: What do you like or dislike about those? What do you want your new rifle to do that those can't?

 

[Preacherman]

I think we would benefit from a few definitions here. A "main battle rifle" is usually considered to be chambered in a major caliber (7.62 NATO, .30-'06, .303, 7.62x54R, 7.92 Mauser, etc.) An "assault rifle" isn't really a rifle at all - it's a lighter, shorter weapon, designed for close-to-medium-range work, with a cartridge weighing less than an MBR's (meaning more ammunition can be carried) and generating less recoil (meaning it's more comfortable for the shooter). An assault rifle is usually capable of burst or full-auto fire, whereas an MBR isn't (with the exception of the exceptionally silly idea of the full-auto setting on M14's!).

So, if you want a "main battle rifle", that already rules out the intermediate cartridges such as 5.56mm., 5.45mm., 7.62x39mm., etc. Those belong to the "assault rifle" category

Then, you'll have to decide on what action you want. There are plenty of low-cost milsurp bolt-actions out there, capable of fine accuracy and long range: but they're slower in operation (for the average shooter) than a semi-auto rifle such as the Garand, CETME, G3, FN/FAL, M14/M1A, etc. The latter are pretty good as far as field accuracy is concerned (although not match accuracy unless you invest a LOT of money), but offer a faster rate of fire and easier and faster reloading.

My recommendation for a low-cost introductory MBR would be the Saiga in .308. I know it's not a "battle rifle" in the sense that it's ever been issued to an army in this format: but it combines the proven, rugged, reliable AK-47 action (in a stronger RPK receiver in the Saiga) with the battle-proven 7.62/.308 cartridge. It's fairly low-cost ($300-$350 retail most places I've looked), comes in a 16" barrel if you want a compact weapon or a 22" if you want longer-range work, and is relatively light and easy to handle.

If you want a more "military" rifle, the cheapest alternative on the market at the moment seems to be the CETME - but quality is hit-or-miss, and accuracy varies from weapon to weapon.

 

[Warner]

Charles S. There’s an old saying, “Where there’s smoke, there’s fireâ€

When it comes time to make your decision, remember which calibers have all the controversy swirling around them. As your real world “Blackhawk Down†inclusion suggested, there are seldom any problems with the larger calibers effectiveness if anti-personnel requirements are present. Those factors that too many folks perceive as problems such as weight and recoil, will go wholly unnoticed if your chosen arm is ever really needed.

Good luck.

 

[DMK]

The purpose of this thread is to get other peoples opinion on ammo and caliber effectiveness.

Charles, I missed this first time I read your post and I suspect everyone else that posted did also. Perhaps you should start a new post and pare it down to just this one issue. I suspect that you will get a lot of gun advice and little ammo advice in this thread.

Yea, this has been discussed quite a bit and there is probably a lot of interesting info in the archives, but it is always a fun discussion and there are probably some new anecdotes from the Gulf.

 

[MLC]

DMK, was the Somali that was shot numerous times with the 308 the same one they mentioned being shot with little effect with an M-60?
I recall mention of one 60 gunners having only SLAP ammo for his weapon.
They would zip through people without the punch of the ball ammo.
My copy of the book is loaned out so I can't check.

 

[natedog]

Really, we have to remember where the assault rifle concept came from. WW2 and before, the armies of the world usually had a long, heavy bolt action rifle firing a very powerful, long range cartridge. Most also had sub-machine guns. The sub-machine gun is very effective at close range, offering firepower, lightweight, manuverability, and lightweight ammo. However, they plain suck at long range. Just how the bolt action sucks at close range. So, the Germans took both concepts and blended it into one: the STG-44. It fired an intermediate round, that wasn't as heavy or powerful as the bolt action rifle, but wasn't as light and low-recoiling as submachine gun round. Assault rifles generally are jack of all trades, yet masters of none.

 

[Charles S]

Gentleman,

This has been interesting, I appreciate the input.

Natedog, I really am leaning toward a 308 and I really am strongly considering the CETME or the G3 variants, because of weapon cost, magazine cost, and reliability. It would not take much of a nudge to get me to move in that direction.

DMK, I really like the Garand and I have not ruled that route out. The one drawback of the Garand is as you stated ammo is really limited to 150grs weight.

To answer your other question. The Mini-14’s accuracy really falls of as the barrel heats up, but otherwise it is a reliable handy rifle. The SAR1 is not as accurate as the SKS, but it is fine for its task, the sights are very poor in my opinion. The SKS is quite accurate, but again I would like better sights.

Preacherman, I agree with your definition of a battle rifle and that is really what I am looking for.

I really want a rifle with good sights, that is capable of around than 2 MOA accuracy with decent, NOT MATCH, ammo. I do not want a target rifle, I would prefer semi auto. The ability to mount optics is a plus, but is not necessary.

I will look into the Saiga. Anyone with other input on this rifle? I really do want a very rugged and reliable rifle, so I am leaning toward the military rifles.

Warner, I feel the same way you do. Stopping power never seemed to be an issue with the Garand or the M-14, but there were other issues such as ammo weight, and a steep learning curve in basic.

DMK, I really would like other peoples input on rumors or actual knowledge of actual battle performance. I have followed several threads on our board in which the shortcomings of 5.56 are discussed. The most recent I remember centered around the new 6.8mm AR variant.

I agree this is a fun discussion and I was hoping for some input from recent conflicts.

Again thanks for the assistance, I appreciate your info and your rifle recommendations also.

Charles

 

[No4Mk1*]

If you are going to be shooting paper mostly, remember that .30" holes are hard to see at 100 yards with 17x magnification and .22" holes are about impossible to see. Just a minor point.

 

[DMK]

DMK, was the Somali that was shot numerous times with the 308 the same one they mentioned being shot with little effect with an M-60?
I recall mention of one 60 gunners having only SLAP ammo for his weapon.

Yes, I believe you are correct that it was AP ammo. Though, this still proves the point that unless the bullet expands, tumbles or fragments, drilling a 30 cal. hole in somebody attacking you will not reliably cause immediate incapacitation unless you pierce the heart, spine or brain.

If you are going to be shooting paper mostly, remember that .30" holes are hard to see at 100 yards with 17x magnification and .22" holes are about impossible to see. Just a minor point.

I just had that problem at the range this morning. I had my FAL and AR. The holes made by the FAL were easy to see with just 10x binoculars, but the AR's holes were difficult to see even through my 20x spotting scope on a tripod.

 

[DMK]

The SKS is quite accurate, but again I would like better sights.

Have you considered mounting a good quality red dot on the SKS?

 

[Ian]

A simpler solution for AK and SKS sights would be a Mojo sight (http://www.mojosight.com). I put one on my AK, and it was a big improvement over the original rear sight.

DMK - Actually, .30 Saboted Light Armor Penetrator (SLAP) uses 5.56mm bullets, IIRC.

 

[JohnKSa]

You only listed two MBR calibers: .308 and 30-06.

The others are intermediate calibers which would mean that they are chambered in assault rifles, not MBRs.

Now, if by MBR, you mean something that takes a magazine then .308 is the way to go.

If you pick 30-06, you're pretty much limiting your choice to the M1 Garand.

 

[Dr.Rob]

Yeah the BAR wasn't made as a semi-auto and 20 plus pounds of rifle is a pain to lug around all day.

Buy what you want, and what you can afford.