Thats a 30-06, but a .308 bullet.
What is the most impressive 308 battle rifle?
- Thread starter mrpackwolf
- Start date
- Status
Considering the criteria were "impressive" and ".308," lets work with the former. Too many math challenged public schoolers have abused the latter with the M1.
Using the flathead analogy, sure, it's impressive for it's time. However, it's cyclic rate, durability, and foot pounds of force output were made inferior by better designs. What criteria would anyone put on evaluating "impressive" if it's not based on obvious gains in power or versatility - something that can be measured and expressed in numbers?
Compared to the new Coyote 5.0 DOHC, the flathead is anemic and inefficient. Since ".308" pretty much limits the power output to an established level - say, NATO milspec ammo, what's left is the weapon. The AR10 is lighter, has less moving parts, is easier to clean, and more accurate. It can be made more accurate more cheaply, and doesn't need complicated presses and gunsmith level workmanship to get that accuracy.
Now, in terms of "impressive," what rates better for the M14 crowd? Name it, and I already mentioned a superior feature in the AR10. How can a weapon that is a collection of inferior designs be more "impressive" than one that is considered the pinnacle of .308 progress?
While it's certainly arguable that the Sengalese AR10 - it was issued, after all - doesn't have much better sights, the modern issued AR10's used by American and British forces at least allow mounting an optic over the receiver on a solid rail, not a cobbled together tin cover or side mount. And, being a universal pattern, isn't restricted to a proprietary clamp like the HK91. Darn optic mount cost more than the Aimpoint I had on it.
Nobody is even trying to compare feature for feature, just spluttering on about their romance with a curio and relic. If you can't quantify what's "impressive," then at least rationalize it. If an old wood and rusty steel gun that most soldiers hated for being heavy and kicking a lot is the epitome of what symbolizes firearms excellence, spell it out.
One line grunts chanting a mantra leave things a bit vague.
How about, "I love the feel of white walnut stained to simulate select grain better woods, the less than crisp and plain workmanlike inletting around the grainy parkerized finish of mass produced heavy iron parts that better designs eliminated..."
I've got an October '64 Winchester 94, sure, I appreciate an old gun for what it was, but I'm not about to consider what was run of the mill as being the most impressive. That's like saying the '65 Galaxie 500 with 289 is the most impressive car that year. Well, when your perspective is a bit broader - that's the year the 289 Cobra's won the FIA championship.
Same size motorvator, much better, lighter chassis than the Galaxie. Since ".308" is a standard reference for the discussion, what's left is the weapon. And to be "impressive," it should be a winner. The AR10 is still being issued, NEW, for use in combat, isn't that more impressive than guns not even available unless refitted from used?
Doesn't "impressive" also include design features that others include in their offerings? That SCAR in .308 is mosty based on the principal features introduced by the AR10. How impressive is it when most of the competition copies what you do?
Divorce the emo from the empirical, and you're left with the AR10. If "impressive" is all about sensory input and romance, I can't disagree. Old guns have that, largely because we didn't have to depend on them and put up with their quirks.
Using the flathead analogy, sure, it's impressive for it's time. However, it's cyclic rate, durability, and foot pounds of force output were made inferior by better designs. What criteria would anyone put on evaluating "impressive" if it's not based on obvious gains in power or versatility - something that can be measured and expressed in numbers?
Compared to the new Coyote 5.0 DOHC, the flathead is anemic and inefficient. Since ".308" pretty much limits the power output to an established level - say, NATO milspec ammo, what's left is the weapon. The AR10 is lighter, has less moving parts, is easier to clean, and more accurate. It can be made more accurate more cheaply, and doesn't need complicated presses and gunsmith level workmanship to get that accuracy.
Now, in terms of "impressive," what rates better for the M14 crowd? Name it, and I already mentioned a superior feature in the AR10. How can a weapon that is a collection of inferior designs be more "impressive" than one that is considered the pinnacle of .308 progress?
While it's certainly arguable that the Sengalese AR10 - it was issued, after all - doesn't have much better sights, the modern issued AR10's used by American and British forces at least allow mounting an optic over the receiver on a solid rail, not a cobbled together tin cover or side mount. And, being a universal pattern, isn't restricted to a proprietary clamp like the HK91. Darn optic mount cost more than the Aimpoint I had on it.
Nobody is even trying to compare feature for feature, just spluttering on about their romance with a curio and relic. If you can't quantify what's "impressive," then at least rationalize it. If an old wood and rusty steel gun that most soldiers hated for being heavy and kicking a lot is the epitome of what symbolizes firearms excellence, spell it out.
One line grunts chanting a mantra leave things a bit vague.
How about, "I love the feel of white walnut stained to simulate select grain better woods, the less than crisp and plain workmanlike inletting around the grainy parkerized finish of mass produced heavy iron parts that better designs eliminated..."
I've got an October '64 Winchester 94, sure, I appreciate an old gun for what it was, but I'm not about to consider what was run of the mill as being the most impressive. That's like saying the '65 Galaxie 500 with 289 is the most impressive car that year. Well, when your perspective is a bit broader - that's the year the 289 Cobra's won the FIA championship.
Same size motorvator, much better, lighter chassis than the Galaxie. Since ".308" is a standard reference for the discussion, what's left is the weapon. And to be "impressive," it should be a winner. The AR10 is still being issued, NEW, for use in combat, isn't that more impressive than guns not even available unless refitted from used?
Doesn't "impressive" also include design features that others include in their offerings? That SCAR in .308 is mosty based on the principal features introduced by the AR10. How impressive is it when most of the competition copies what you do?
Divorce the emo from the empirical, and you're left with the AR10. If "impressive" is all about sensory input and romance, I can't disagree. Old guns have that, largely because we didn't have to depend on them and put up with their quirks.
Ranger30-06
Member
The biggest reason I can't consider the AR-10 to be one of the best or most impressive is because since the beginning, It has really only seen use as a sniper rifle. The Army has always stuck with the DMR/M14 for the battle rifle role, which is understood to be between 300 and 600 meters.
YES, you could make an AR-10 a battle rifle; I'm not denying that. The fact remains though, that no country has ever used it to fill a battle rifle role! The G3, FAL, and M14 have all been used in the battle rifle role, and the only reason the SCAR-H can be counted in is because it was built from the ground up and tested to be a battle rifle. Don't get me wrong, the AR-10 can very easily be transitioned into a battle rifle, but it just isn't in the military world. In the civilian world, it can be one just like I call my Saiga .308 my battle rifle.
YES, you could make an AR-10 a battle rifle; I'm not denying that. The fact remains though, that no country has ever used it to fill a battle rifle role! The G3, FAL, and M14 have all been used in the battle rifle role, and the only reason the SCAR-H can be counted in is because it was built from the ground up and tested to be a battle rifle. Don't get me wrong, the AR-10 can very easily be transitioned into a battle rifle, but it just isn't in the military world. In the civilian world, it can be one just like I call my Saiga .308 my battle rifle.
Ghost Tracker
Member
Another FAL fan here! A sloppy, cheap build will still do the job & a well-assembled, high quality model will still run (and run and run...) with ANY modern battle rifle. Ergonomics (I know, purely subjective) feel better to me than M1/14, G3 or AR10.
SharpsDressedMan
member
I do not think the SCAR-H has been "battle tested" any more than Armalite tested the original AR-10. The AR-10 has seen office adoption in Portugal and Sudan, and has been in 5-6 major conflicts. The SCAR has yet to be proven in combat. I will recognize any durable rifle like the AR-10, SCAR, and the AK vaiants in .308/7.62x51mm to be battle worthy for us civilians. They would probably all outlive any use we would be able to put them to collectively (meaning a few of us with unlimited funds might be able to buy and shoot enough ammo to wear one out, but not the average user).
henschman
Member
Arguing over the benefits of the original 1950s AR-10 is kind of pointless, since they are scarce as hen's teeth and will be class 3 if you do find one. This guy wants a battle rifle he can go out, buy, and shoot.
Yes it is tough to get a short eye relief scope on an M-14, but generally short eye relief is not a good idea on a .308 anyway, for obvious reasons! This is the reason Trijicon makes their ACOG models that have .308 reticles with a longer eye relief than the ones for 5.56s.
But it is true enough that it is easier to mount optics on a flat-top .308 AR than on the M14 style rifles. The main advantage the AR has is that you don't have to add a cheek riser to get proper cheek weld when you scope it. Depending on optic height, you sometimes do on an M-14.
As I see it, the AR has the optics advantage and the accuracy advantage, but the M-14 has the reliability advantage, the iron sights advantage, and a slight weight advantage.
Like I said, I consider the M-14 to have a better balance of desirable features for my purposes... but if you don't place as much importance on the categories of, say, reliability and iron sights as I do, then you may reach a different conclusion... which is why I said before that this is very much up to personal preference.
If you want my advice and preference on the main models out there, I would say for an M-14 type, look for either an older one with GI parts; one from the high end mfg's that make them to mil spec, like Smith, LRB, 7.62mm Firearms, or Fulton; or if you can live with a non-chrome lined barrel, a new one with a lifetime warranty from SAI. For a FAL, look for a quality build using an original foreign parts with a GI chrome lined barrel, and I would prefer metric pattern to inch (better sights, and more common parts). For an AR-based one (using the term loosely to include the FN), I would look at Armalite or a FN SCAR-17. For a G-3 type rifle, I would look for an HK or a PTR.
There's my $.02 FWIW.
Yes it is tough to get a short eye relief scope on an M-14, but generally short eye relief is not a good idea on a .308 anyway, for obvious reasons! This is the reason Trijicon makes their ACOG models that have .308 reticles with a longer eye relief than the ones for 5.56s.
But it is true enough that it is easier to mount optics on a flat-top .308 AR than on the M14 style rifles. The main advantage the AR has is that you don't have to add a cheek riser to get proper cheek weld when you scope it. Depending on optic height, you sometimes do on an M-14.
As I see it, the AR has the optics advantage and the accuracy advantage, but the M-14 has the reliability advantage, the iron sights advantage, and a slight weight advantage.
Like I said, I consider the M-14 to have a better balance of desirable features for my purposes... but if you don't place as much importance on the categories of, say, reliability and iron sights as I do, then you may reach a different conclusion... which is why I said before that this is very much up to personal preference.
If you want my advice and preference on the main models out there, I would say for an M-14 type, look for either an older one with GI parts; one from the high end mfg's that make them to mil spec, like Smith, LRB, 7.62mm Firearms, or Fulton; or if you can live with a non-chrome lined barrel, a new one with a lifetime warranty from SAI. For a FAL, look for a quality build using an original foreign parts with a GI chrome lined barrel, and I would prefer metric pattern to inch (better sights, and more common parts). For an AR-based one (using the term loosely to include the FN), I would look at Armalite or a FN SCAR-17. For a G-3 type rifle, I would look for an HK or a PTR.
There's my $.02 FWIW.
BADUNAME37
Member
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2008
- Messages
- 4,434
I vote M-14.
SilentStalker
Member
I would have to say for proven, built like a tank reliability, the FAL. However, I feel like a new contender is going to be the FN SCAR in .308. That is one nice piece of equipment.
pantannojack
Member
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2011
- Messages
- 13
M1A all the way. My medium bbl stocked in Macmillian with iron sights beat the best of the Spokane swat team's scoped rifles x course to 600 yds.
P-32
Member
OK boys ang girls, a couple of things. First, an M1A was never used by any Army to fight any battle. A M1A is a knock off of the M-14 which is a true automatic rifle which can be selected to full auto fire. A M1A can not. The M1A was invented by Springfield NC,as a SEMI type of rifle whch looks simular to a M-14. Todays Springfield is not the old Gov Springfield Armory but if you think it is it makes them smile.. The 308 M-1 Garand was in fact the Navy's service rifle fore awhile. The real Springfield Amory did build SA 308 M-1 barrels after the Navy tried the Sleeve thing and found the sleeve was ejected along with the hot brass.
An Impressive 308 battle rifle would be a M-14 in full auto........if you can hang on to it.
An Impressive 308 battle rifle would be a M-14 in full auto........if you can hang on to it.
Actually all M14's came off the line as semi-auto only. An many M14's in the military stayed that way. It was up to the commander to decide how many M14's would be fitted with the Full Auto switch. Sometimes only one man per squad would have a M14 that was Full Auto.
henschman
Member
Yeah the Springfield Armory Inc. M1A isn't the same as an M-14, but up until the late 90s or so the only real difference was the fact that the M1A was built on a investment cast receiver whereas the original M-14 was on a forged billet receiver. These older M1As were built with all GI M-14 parts except for the receiver. Later, SAI started making their own parts and now all parts on their rifles are commercial... though they can all be swapped out for GI parts if they break.
Also, there are manufacturers who will build you a rifle with all GI M-14 parts on a forged receiver made exactly to mil specs. Something like that will be virtually identical to an M-14 in everything except for the select fire parts (which many service M-14s had removed anyway because FA is useless on that type of rifle). Those would be the higher end mfg's I mentioned in my last post.
FYI there is not really much difference in durability and service life between a mil-spec forged receiver and SAI's cast ones... there are many many cast M1As that have had tens of thousands of rounds through their receivers without a problem (and likewise there have been forged receivers that crack and have to be replaced).
Also, there are manufacturers who will build you a rifle with all GI M-14 parts on a forged receiver made exactly to mil specs. Something like that will be virtually identical to an M-14 in everything except for the select fire parts (which many service M-14s had removed anyway because FA is useless on that type of rifle). Those would be the higher end mfg's I mentioned in my last post.
FYI there is not really much difference in durability and service life between a mil-spec forged receiver and SAI's cast ones... there are many many cast M1As that have had tens of thousands of rounds through their receivers without a problem (and likewise there have been forged receivers that crack and have to be replaced).
KodiakBeer
member
I own a high end FAL (GI) built on the best F.A.C. receiver from a like new parts kit. I love my FAL. It's accurate, utterly reliable and great fun to shoot. It's also as close to historically correct for an early FAL as can be found - original walnut, matching parts (except for the short list of American parts required by law), pristine bore, 4 or 5 extra mags, etc.
The M1A is a better rifle. The ergonomics, balance and general style points elevate it above the FAL, in my opinion.
Anybody who disagrees is welcome to contact me and swap their M1A for my FAL. You can have two weeks to shoot the hell out of the FAL and verify its accuracy and reliability.
I don't expect any takers because anyone who has shot both will likely prefer the M1A.
The M1A is a better rifle. The ergonomics, balance and general style points elevate it above the FAL, in my opinion.
Anybody who disagrees is welcome to contact me and swap their M1A for my FAL. You can have two weeks to shoot the hell out of the FAL and verify its accuracy and reliability.
I don't expect any takers because anyone who has shot both will likely prefer the M1A.
FN SCAR 17 (SCAR heavy) may not have seen use in as many conflicts as the other rifles, but it is one hell of a weapon and it is currently fielded by the US, so it should be considered in our quest to debate the "most impressive 308 battle rifle."
I recently purchased one. I've never held, or fired, a SCAR before I unboxed it. The immediate impression I got when pulling it out of the box was "goddamn this thing is light!"
In the past I've owned both an FAL and Springfield M1A. I currently own an H&K G3 and CETME, and an FN-AR (but that's a sporting rifle, not a battle rifle).
The SCAR 17S is the lightest I've ever held.
When I held it, it was love at first lift. When I took it down to clean the factory grease out, it was love at first dissassembly. When I shot it, it was love at first group.
The romance didn't really turn in to a relationship, though, until I got home and put it on the bench to clean the crud out. We'd shot 300 Malaysian surplus 7.62x51 rounds down the tube. When it was dissassembled, to my immeasurable surprise and immense gratitude, I found no crud. Just had to mop the barrel and re-lube it.
Cleanest shooting rifle I've ever owned, right up there with the FS2000 as far as cleanliness.
leadcounsel
member
I own and have fired the commonly best variants of .308 battle rifles.
Top two tie - FAL and M1A. Just depends on whether you want a traditional rifle or a pistol grip style. Both are just outstanding.
After that, PTR91 is clumsy. Saiga is very basic.
I've fired the SCAR, in full auto even, in 5.56 and .308. Very nice rifle, but way to expensive.
Top two tie - FAL and M1A. Just depends on whether you want a traditional rifle or a pistol grip style. Both are just outstanding.
After that, PTR91 is clumsy. Saiga is very basic.
I've fired the SCAR, in full auto even, in 5.56 and .308. Very nice rifle, but way to expensive.
Last edited:
91-A2 manufactured in Oberndorf. If you must have a shorter version, an A-3 stock can still be found in like-new condition.
My impression of the PTR-91 was that it was cheap junk. No rifle for the above purposes should ever require a "break in" period.
My impression of the PTR-91 was that it was cheap junk. No rifle for the above purposes should ever require a "break in" period.
Rifleman 173
Member
This thread makes me really miss my old XM-21 sniper rifle that I carried in Viet Nam. I loved that rifle but had to leave it behind when I came back home. When you coupled the XM-21 with good ammo and a good scope, that was the most accurate rifle I ever saw or used. It never once let me down. It never broke on me. It was a heavy PITA to carry but it was well worth it. All it ever took was one round fired by me on to a target and the fight was over. At my last field location we had an enemy rifleman try to play sniper against us. I located his position, sighted in on it and returned fire right after he shot a round. A number of us actually heard my bullet hit him in the dark of the night. He fired no more at us. And it was such a beautiful rifle too. I do miss that rifle. Even after 40+ years.
- Status
