Well, it had to happen this way......

[Abominable No-Man]

Dear gang,

I would like to relate to you an unfortunate turn of events that occurred while I was deployed. My wife ran into a bad string of luck involving the
van and rain-slick roads. So, she ended up in desperate need of funds to make some emergency (priced any parts for a Chrysler T&C lately?) repairs.

So, for the greater good of my family, I reluctantly had to part with my beloved M1A.

I need a replacement. Been looking for replacement. Considering the FAL series . Yes I, the Abominable No-Man, hard-core M14 fan is considering replacing the faithful system he has relied on for years. Still love the M14, always will, but considering the (now) prohibitive cost of acquiring a new one along with magazines, spare parts, and tools (hey, I bought it while I was still single- my paycheck wasn't as committed then...),
I am considering something else. Still want it in 7.62, tho.

Don't regret the reason for parting with my M1A, just wish it didn't have to happen that way .

ANM

 

[swingset]

There will be M1's and M14's to buy for some time to come, don't worry about losing one.

That said, the FAL is a nice design, a fun rifle and an asset to any collection and it's a good time to buy one.

Can't go wrong with a FAL, G3, CETME, all of which are terrific bargains on a MBR.

 

[ACP230]

If you decide to stick with the M1A you might check the sale posts on these sights, www.jouster.com (Culver's Shooting Pages) and www.sturmgewher.com. They are occasional deals on both.

Also, SARCO is advertising a few M1A type "dinosaur" rifles. Some are Chinese but one is am Armscorp. Prices are reasonable for these times.

I bought a mag recently for $25 and have seen them as low as $20 on the Net. I have never warmed up to the FAL, so I am willing to pay the freight for M1A mags.

 

[John/az]

MBR = ?

 

[hillbilly]

MBR is acronym of Main Battle Rifle.

Battle Rifles are different from Assault Rifles in both cartridge size and concept.

Main Battle Rifles are usually semiautomatic rifles chambered in full-sized rifle cartridges (like .308 or .30-06 or 8mm) and designed for semi-auto, and in a couple of cases like the actual M-14 as originally issued or the first FN/FALs, full-auto fire against man-sized targets out to 600 yards or even beyond.

Assault Rifles are chambered in smaller-sized rifle calibers, like 7.62X39 or .223, and are select-fire, meaning almost always semi and full auto, depending on where the selector switch is pushed, and intended to provide high volume fire and single aimed shots on man-sized targets out to around 300 yards or so.

MBRs have more thump per shot, but are usually heavier and more unwieldy than assault rifles, whereas assault rifles are easier to carry, and you can carry more rounds of ammo for the same weight, but lose some of the range and some of the thump.

hillbilly

 

[manwithoutahome]

Abominable No-Man, I'm assuming that you're Military. Next time something comes up, you can request an interest free loan from whatever branch of service that you're in. Accounting and Finance is the place you need to go, fill out the paperwork, have your commander sign and then go and have the money sent direct to your bank account.

Just a heads up for next time.

M

 

[John/az]

Thank you, Hillbilly! You went above and beyond the call of duty with that explaination!

 

[Abominable No-Man]

Manwithoutahome, that's true. Unfortunately, this was a have-to-have it now kind of a thing. I was in Mosul when it happened and communications with the home front were iffy. I actually found out about it after it happened.

ANM

 

[Nightcrawler]

Well, if you're really a fan of the M14 rifle, I'd suggest sticking with it. I love the FAL, I really do, but if you're big into the M14, you shouldn't settle for something else. You might end up regretting it later.

Springfield Armory isn't the only game in town. I can't find a link, but check out West Texas Ordnance and other small, semi-custom builders. You'll probably get a better rifle with fewer MIM parts.

 

[Quartus]

intended to provide high volume fire and single aimed shots on man-sized targets out to around 300 yards or so.

Well, where does that leave the M-16/AR-15? The original specs called for it to be able to "pierce both sides of a standard issue helmet at a distance of 500 yards".

Which it does, BTW.




No-man, the terms "main battle rifle" and "assault rifle" are just arbitrary caliber snob words. They have no useful meaning in this context. Examine that definition carefully.

 

[Nightcrawler]

Which it does, BTW.

How can this be with the magically fragmenting death ray ammo?

(Give MY service rifle armor/cover penetration over "fragmentation" or "tumbling" any day.)

 

[Abominable No-Man]

Quartus,

I've got no beef with the AR15/M16. That's what I've carried in one form or another for nearly 13 years. Besides, like you said, "assault rifle" and "main battle rifle" are terms thought up by someone else. Look through the military TM's and you'll find them called "U.S. Rifle , 7.62mm, M14" or "U.S. Rifle , 5.56mm M16" (or something close to that....).

I just really dug on the M1A, plus there was the emotional thing that went with it- put it together myself and had it for a long time. Didn't feel a desire for another rifle other than a bolt-action .30-06 for several years.

Sigh.

Well, that being said, perhaps it's a good thing in a way. I confess to a certain amount (all right, a HUGE amount...) of snobbishness when it came to that rifle. I admit it, I was an insufferable sometimes when I showed up with that thing at the range.

Anyway, confessional is over, and I've said my Hail Marys. Now I need to find a replacement, whether it's a FAL or another M1A or whatever.

 

[Nightcrawler]

"Assault rifle" and "battle rifle" are more convenient terms that "intermediate-cartridge-firing-select-fire-rifle" and "full-power-rifle-cartridge-firing-self-loading-or-select-fire-rifle".

If that makes me a "caliber snob", then I'm a caliber snob, I guess. It's just terms we use to differentiate between rifles that fire full cartridges (.308, .30-06, 8mm, 7.62x54) and rifles that fire intermediate cartridges (.223, 5.45, 7.62x39mm).

No snobbery involved, Quartus. One simply has to know the limits of the weapon he/she chooses, and the rifles firing 5.56mm ARE best inside 300 meters, and I've heard that 100 meters and in is best for the 14" carbines like the M4. Note that the Army's typical qualification ranges for the M16 only go OUT to 300 meters.

I suppose this makes me a snob?

 

[BusMaster007]

Abominable No-Man:

Might I suggest a look at this Special Edition Black Rifle, as offered by AR15.com/ArmaLite...?
In your choice of Rifle or Carbine, of course.


The joint venture is being handled by our good friends at -

http://www.coalcreekarmory.com/



Go to the 2003 SEBR AR10 page -

http://www.coalcreekarmory.com/SEBR 2003.htm



Get the details at -

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=122&t=193027

I've ordered the Rifle with the Carbine buttstock, as it was originally offered.
Full-length top-rail and National Match Trigger options.
I'm only a LITTLE excited about it!
(...edited to add - because it's PAID FOR!!! Yahoo! )

 

[Quartus]

I just really dug on the M1A, plus there was the emotional thing that went with it- put it together myself and had it for a long time. Didn't feel a desire for another rifle other than a bolt-action .30-06 for several years.

Sigh.

Yeah, I can feel for you. That's gotta hurt. I had to part with my first AR-15 to pay a debt to a roommate. Ouch. But... debts must be paid.


Give the FAL a good look. I first fired it in Belgium, while training there with Belgian troops. (A NATO gig.) Sweet rifle! It's my choice in a .308, with no competition.

I've have nothing but respect for the M-14/M1-A, but it just doesn't fit me, so I've never had one. Same for the other contenders.

Well, if you're really a fan of the M14 rifle, I'd suggest sticking with it. I love the FAL, I really do, but if you're big into the M14, you shouldn't settle for something else. You might end up regretting it later.

Dat's good ADvice. But who knows, you may fall in love with a FAL.

 

[Quartus]

If that makes me a "caliber snob", then I'm a caliber snob, I guess. It's just terms we use to differentiate between rifles that fire full cartridges (.308, .30-06, 8mm, 7.62x54) and rifles that fire intermediate cartridges (.223, 5.45, 7.62x39mm).

Hmmm. So the .308 is a "full size" cartridge. Compared to what? A .338 Win Mag? .375 H&H? .458 Win Mag? Uh-oh! It's starting to look pretty "intermediate"!

And the .223 is "intermediate"? Compared to what? Compare to the list I just gave, it's positively PUNY! SMALL! How about if we compare it to something else? What about .219 Bee? .17s? Oh, NOW it's looking a little BIGGER!

The terms are completely arbitrary, invented by some reality-challenged indiviuals who think that a "real battle rifle" has to be the magic .30 cal and be accurate out to 1000 yards. It has more to do with nostalgia than facts.

No snobbery involved, Quartus. One simply has to know the limits of the weapon he/she chooses,

The terms "battle rifle", "full sized cartridge", and "intermediate cartridge" have nothing to do with knowing the limits of a weapon. Knowing what each weapon and cartridge is capable of, does. These bogus labels only confuse the issue.

and the rifles firing 5.56mm ARE best inside 300 meters,

So are the 7.62s. So are 1000 yard full benchrest competiton rifles. So is a 16" naval gun. Every weapon is more accurate at shorter ranges than longer ranges.

and I've heard that 100 meters and in is best for the 14" carbines like the M4.

Are you talking about the cartridge or the carbine? Chop an M1-A down to 14 inches and see if it performs well past 100 yards. Unless you need to do a lot of in-building stuff, chopping a military rifle down to 14" is just plain STUPID, whatever the caliber.

Note that the Army's typical qualification ranges for the M16 only go OUT to 300 meters.

Been that way since M-14 days. It's a practical combat range for either caliber. In the right hands, the M-16 will do its job reliably out to 500. For the M-14, make that maybe 700. But shooters who can hit well at those ranges are rare, and the Army doesn't count on the few rare shooters. They train for the average guy. Part of that training is to know your limits (weapon OR shooter) and not engage targets past them.

 

[Ian]

And the .223 is "intermediate"? Compared to what?

Well, compared to the other military mass-issue weapons/cartridges. Looking at it from the original (WWII) perspective, there are pistol rounds, full-auto intermediate rounds, and semi-auto rifle rounds. A full-auto 8mm or .30-06 is just too much oomph to be all that practical (with the exception of really heavy pieces like the BAR). Pistol rounds are too light to be useful at 100+ yard distances. So, we get the intermediate round - 7.92x33 (IIRC), 7.62x39, etc. Light enough to be useful in a standard-issue full-auto, but more potent than a 9mm pistol round. Semi-auto ARs and full-auto M14s and FALs have blurred the distinction, but I think that's what the initial situation was. The range differentiations are just corollaries of the real reason the cartridges were designed.

 

[Nightcrawler]

Quartus, why exactly are you so upset about this? Why are you accusing people of being "caliber snobs" for using terms that differentiate between types of rifles? C'mon, it's NOT that big of a deal.
And I CERTAINLY didn't invent the term "assault rifle". Nor did anyone on this board. NOR did any of us come up with the phrase "intermediate cartridge" (which orginally was to differentiate between a pistol cartridge and a standard service rifle cartridge of the time, such as .30-06, 8mm, or .303).

I really don't appreciate your accusatory tone here. If somebody stepped on your manhood by implying the AR-15 isn't a "main battle rifle" and that the .223 isn't especially powerful (and thusly "intermediate"), there's really nothing I can do. In any case, arguing semantics with me isn't going to change the vernacular. Go over to Battlerifles.com and tell THEM what a bunch of reality-challenged, nostaligic caliber-snobs they are.

Name calling RARELY convinces people of anything.

 

[Balog]

Nightcrawler wrote:

Go over to Battlerifles.com and tell THEM what a bunch of reality-challenged, nostaligic caliber-snobs they are.

I broke out laughing when I saw this. I came to this board from Battlerifles.com, and I just got a mental picture of some arf.com-style wanker posting that on there. I know of at least one ex-SEAL who served in Vietnam that posts on that board who would be happy to give a long, detailed explanation of why the AR-15/M-16 platform is, shall we say, sub-optimal

 

[Quartus]

Quartus, why exactly are you so upset about this? Why are you accusing people of being "caliber snobs" for using terms that differentiate between types of rifles?

There are several answers. One is because they DON'T in any meaningful way. THey obfuscate the real issues. And I don't like to sit by and see bad information put out, especially when there may be newbies reading. The terms are not based on any objective standard - they are completely arbitrary. Have you ever asked yourself where they come from? Ian gave the answer:

Looking at it from the original (WWII)

Hello? WWII is the ORGINAL? WWII is the standard? Yes, to most who served in it. It strokes their egos to denigrate the 5.56 as less than "a man's cartridge", by contrast of course THEY used a "REAL man's rifle/cartridge". But it's a bit too obvious to put it that way, so the terms "intermediate cartridge" vs. "full size cartridge" and "assault rifle" vs. "BATTLE rifle" serve instead.

I know of at least one ex-SEAL who served in Vietnam that posts on that board who would be happy to give a long, detailed explanation of why the AR-15/M-16 platform is, shall we say, sub-optimal

Yeah, there are a LOT of ex-SEALs floating around the Internet. Probably about 200 times as many as actually served. But I did my own time as a straight grunt just after Nam. Most of my NCOs were Nam vets. Then I served in the reserves with guys who were the real deal. I saw them face to face, not on the Internet, and I could read their battle ribbons and patches, so I know what they REALLY were. Most of them had 2 or more tours in Nam, and most of them as SF. (We did have one former bush Marine, though.)

They didn't have anything bad to say about the M-16. Quite the opposite.

 

[Snowdog]

I've heard the M1A being called the prettier of two (compared to an FAL), however, whereas I feel the M14 indeed is an aesthetically pleasing rifle, the FAL is no troll itself.

Such photos make me wonder about wood furniture for my Springfield SAR4800.

I think you'll be more than satified with the FAL; go for it!