Which Battle Rifle?
- Thread starter amprecon
- Start date
- Status
Having given many opinions and past experiences in many other threads I felt it was time to say how I really felt about the whole .308 semi rifle thing...
I want the SCAR-H, even though it is mythical vaporware, and I must be suffering from iwannacoolgunvirus, because having owned everything else, including all options on the poll, there has to be something better.
Until I find that something better I will just have to console myself with my AR-10.
Although, quite frankly, I seem to do well enough with the .223 AR...
So there!
I want the SCAR-H, even though it is mythical vaporware, and I must be suffering from iwannacoolgunvirus, because having owned everything else, including all options on the poll, there has to be something better.
Until I find that something better I will just have to console myself with my AR-10.
Although, quite frankly, I seem to do well enough with the .223 AR...
So there!
Molon Labe
Member
I'm on my second FAL. I love shooting it. But it was designed to be a battle rifle. As I mature in my quest to become a rifleman (i.e. long range/accuracy work), the shortcomings of the FAL become more and more apparent. So my next MBR will be an M1A.
BA110N Man
Member
I own and routinely practice with the following:
(1) Federal Ordnance M1A1
(2) M1 Garand
(3) L1A1 (inch pattern FAL)
(4) DSA Para FAL,
(5) SR-91(t) (Springfield target version of HK91)
(6) PRS91
I have a M4 style AR-15 beside my bed for immediate action along with my Colt 1911 for things that go “bump… thud” in the night. But for my GOOD rifle I choose the M1A1.
I’m a little biased from my Marine Corps days towards the M1A1. But I have also had the opportunity to work with British Royal Marines using their L1A1’s and Norwegian troops using their version of the G3 (HK91). During these times I have had the chance to compare all three and the M16A1 against each other in either simulated or combat conditions. Having this experience in real life living with these weapons on a daily basis, I would still choose the M1A1 as a first choice. I like the FAL as a really good second choice followed very closely by an HK91.
Of course, the best rifle to have when the SHTF is the rifle you have with you. All three will work reliably and effectively if the shooter is trained in marksmanship and tactics. For the money it’s hard to beat the various versions of the FAL and the HK91 that are around. They are inexpensive, effective and dependable. It really is just a matter of preference.
On the M1:
My father is a Korean era Marine with combat experince. He has had extensive experince with the M1 and has divulged a little about his experinces with the rifle and cartridge. One interesting thing he says about the M1 is that it dosen't get caught on brush like rifles with a magazine protruding from the bottom does. He has some experience toting a BAR so he probably knows what he's talking about. Personally I never had a problem with either M14's or M16's catching on brush.
He also says that the 30-06 is hard to beat "... for shooting through trees..." (I am asuming at un-nice people hiding behind them) and that ball tends to go through at least a couple of "targets". (Note: the above comments represent a rare disclosure from him one day when we were at the range... it's been my experince that men who've seen heavy combat generally don't talk about it much, but when they do a wise man listens -- closely.)
(1) Federal Ordnance M1A1
(2) M1 Garand
(3) L1A1 (inch pattern FAL)
(4) DSA Para FAL,
(5) SR-91(t) (Springfield target version of HK91)
(6) PRS91
I have a M4 style AR-15 beside my bed for immediate action along with my Colt 1911 for things that go “bump… thud” in the night. But for my GOOD rifle I choose the M1A1.
I’m a little biased from my Marine Corps days towards the M1A1. But I have also had the opportunity to work with British Royal Marines using their L1A1’s and Norwegian troops using their version of the G3 (HK91). During these times I have had the chance to compare all three and the M16A1 against each other in either simulated or combat conditions. Having this experience in real life living with these weapons on a daily basis, I would still choose the M1A1 as a first choice. I like the FAL as a really good second choice followed very closely by an HK91.
Of course, the best rifle to have when the SHTF is the rifle you have with you. All three will work reliably and effectively if the shooter is trained in marksmanship and tactics. For the money it’s hard to beat the various versions of the FAL and the HK91 that are around. They are inexpensive, effective and dependable. It really is just a matter of preference.
On the M1:
My father is a Korean era Marine with combat experince. He has had extensive experince with the M1 and has divulged a little about his experinces with the rifle and cartridge. One interesting thing he says about the M1 is that it dosen't get caught on brush like rifles with a magazine protruding from the bottom does. He has some experience toting a BAR so he probably knows what he's talking about. Personally I never had a problem with either M14's or M16's catching on brush.
He also says that the 30-06 is hard to beat "... for shooting through trees..." (I am asuming at un-nice people hiding behind them) and that ball tends to go through at least a couple of "targets". (Note: the above comments represent a rare disclosure from him one day when we were at the range... it's been my experince that men who've seen heavy combat generally don't talk about it much, but when they do a wise man listens -- closely.)
demusn1979
Member
i also had to vote other!
Of the rifles mentioned, I only have experience with the Garand and the M-14 and must say that these two rifles are very similar. I've held a FAL once and though I can't judge it by that alone it did feel muzzle heavy and not as nicely balanced as the M-14. The sights were okay, but not as good as the M-14's.
I don't feel undergunned with the Garand, but I think it's the coolness factor and the lowest cost of the bunch, aside from the Garand, that is leading me towards the PTR-91. I'm not sure about the charging handle, having to fold it out to operate it seems like it would be hard to do under stress when the adrenalin is flowing, but I guess practice would alleviate that.
I have not ever touched an AR type rifle, so I can't comment on that type, but I don't think that direct gas impingement onto the bolt face and chamber area is conducive to reliability. Weapons with a gas piston already get dirty enough and I'm not sure how the delayed blow-back design handles the gases, but dirt and grime in the chamber is not a good thing for reliability. Although I haven't heard any negative comments regarding the reliability of the G3 design. So if fate will have it, because of price alone, I think I'll go for the PTR-91 and learn on my own how it sizes up to the others I have experience with.
I don't feel undergunned with the Garand, but I think it's the coolness factor and the lowest cost of the bunch, aside from the Garand, that is leading me towards the PTR-91. I'm not sure about the charging handle, having to fold it out to operate it seems like it would be hard to do under stress when the adrenalin is flowing, but I guess practice would alleviate that.
I have not ever touched an AR type rifle, so I can't comment on that type, but I don't think that direct gas impingement onto the bolt face and chamber area is conducive to reliability. Weapons with a gas piston already get dirty enough and I'm not sure how the delayed blow-back design handles the gases, but dirt and grime in the chamber is not a good thing for reliability. Although I haven't heard any negative comments regarding the reliability of the G3 design. So if fate will have it, because of price alone, I think I'll go for the PTR-91 and learn on my own how it sizes up to the others I have experience with.
idakfan
Member
I'd love to buy an M1A but the mag prices are outrageous. Nice looking guns though, and the highest rated in Boston's Gun Bible.
Stinkyshoe
Member
I believe Boston has changed his tune some. My understanding is that he rates the M14 and the FAL about equal. JWR from www.survivalblog.com gives the FAL the nod after being a M14 guy for a long time.
I think I still fall into the catagory of 'why have one when you can have them all'. For me it is between the m14 and FAL.
I think I still fall into the catagory of 'why have one when you can have them all'. For me it is between the m14 and FAL.
Bwana John
Member
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2004
- Messages
- 2,960
How about a gas/piston operated G-3, with the trigger and sights of a M-14?
While I'm sure you would probably be very happy with a quality FAL, if you want a M1A\M14, then that is what you should get. I know money is an issue (and this suggestion won't help) but instead of a SA M1A, I would get one from LRB because their quality is much higher and you are much less likely to get a lemon...
LRB Arms M14SA
LRB Arms M14SA
You can also get them for half that price that work well also. The Genuine GI's just feel better IMHO, but the cheapies work. I don't think the prices differ from AR mags much. I think too many people are spoiled by all the cheap surplus stuff floating around for some rifles. M14 mags used to be in that surplus category, but not anymore.
Model520Fan
Member
I have a Belgian FAL. The first time I ever picked one up, I couldn't believe how good it felt. Then, a few days later, I had occasion to look ergot up in the dictionary, and I noticed that next to ergonomic there was a picture of an FAL.
I don't like M1A's, although I understand that the best ones are probably more accurate than most FAL's. I also don't like the G3, although ancient Army tests concluded that they were BETTER than the FAL in Arctic conditions.
The Belgian FAL's POI is changed by sling pressure on the barrel. 2" straight down @ 100 yd for me, as I recall.
My choice would be the FAL, but I can see why others might choose differently.
I don't like M1A's, although I understand that the best ones are probably more accurate than most FAL's. I also don't like the G3, although ancient Army tests concluded that they were BETTER than the FAL in Arctic conditions.
The Belgian FAL's POI is changed by sling pressure on the barrel. 2" straight down @ 100 yd for me, as I recall.
My choice would be the FAL, but I can see why others might choose differently.
mustanger98
Member
If we beleive everything, and I mean everything, we read on message boards of people trashing one rifle in favor of another based on ergonomics, then the ergonomic superiority changes one shooter to the next. Which is why I stick with the Garand- it works very well for me and many other people.
BA110N Man
Member
FAL (L1A1) Folding Charging Handle
Yes - I didn't like the folding charging handle on the side of my L1A1 and replaced it with an Israelie (sp?) charging handle. It is non-folding and adds the ability to force the bolt closed on a dirty chamber (ala the operating handle on the M1A1.) Though I've never had to use this feature, it is nice knowing I can and has often been stated among the reasons from some gun-gurus for choosing the latter over the former. The only drawback I've noticed is that it sometimes catches on clothing. But no more than the operating handle of my M1A1.
Try it -- you'll like it!
Note: can't go wrong with a Garand...
Yes - I didn't like the folding charging handle on the side of my L1A1 and replaced it with an Israelie (sp?) charging handle. It is non-folding and adds the ability to force the bolt closed on a dirty chamber (ala the operating handle on the M1A1.) Though I've never had to use this feature, it is nice knowing I can and has often been stated among the reasons from some gun-gurus for choosing the latter over the former. The only drawback I've noticed is that it sometimes catches on clothing. But no more than the operating handle of my M1A1.
Try it -- you'll like it!
Note: can't go wrong with a Garand...
- Status
