 DevL 
Member
Joined: May 2002  TX, USA
 Posts: 17368 Feedback: 0-0-0 |
Posted: 12/16/2008 8:36:56 AM
Originally Posted By eracer:
Originally Posted By Fields_Overseer:
Well yeah. I'm talking about cycling by the expanding gases of a fired round directly impinging on the action, vs. cycling by the expanding gases of a fired round impinging on a piston which then cycles the action.
Originally Posted By eracer:
Anything 7.62x51 recoil-operated. Probably an HK91 would be my first choice. Sorry AR lovers, but gas-operated is not the best choice. Wait, recoil operated? WTF you talkin 'bout willis!? my rem597 is recoil operated. I dont think 91s are, you mean piston vs DI? depends, If its in-home my 870. outside, my stag. I have an ak, but right now, im more accurate with my ar(cant hit shit with my ak, need practice!!) and i have one reliable mag for my ak, my ar has 4 100% mags(all of them  ).
I say, which ever one you are most confident with/has proven itself already. Any manufacture can put out a lemon, so make sure, whatever you get, that you run it through its paces and make sure its faithful. The HK's recoil operation is simpler (read robust.) Fewer things to go wrong. The AR is a fine rifle, if maintained properly. And the A2 redesign is certainly an improvement over the original Stoner design. The HK still wins. HK 91... most recoil of any semi auto 7.62x51, not optics friendly, not got a good trigger, not got lots of spare paprts floating around, stock too long, its method of delayed bolt unluck is very susceptible to dust and dirt. Its heavy as its all steel. I actually cant think of a single advantage to an HK91... its not even a very accurate rifle. Good luck trying to shoot suppressed. Like I said... its a horrible rifle, one of the very worst choices. It looks cool and is an HK... thats it. |
|
|
|
CobraBG
Member
Joined: Oct 2008 PA, USA
Posts: 18 Feedback: 0-0-0 |
Posted: 12/16/2008 8:50:06 AM
My Colt 6920.
 |
|
|
|
eracer
Member
Joined: Dec 2002 FL, USA
Posts: 133 Feedback: 0-0-0 |
Posted: 12/18/2008 9:20:35 AM
Originally Posted By DevL:
On the subject of optics, I will agree.
Originally Posted By eracer:
Originally Posted By Fields_Overseer:
Well yeah. I'm talking about cycling by the expanding gases of a fired round directly impinging on the action, vs. cycling by the expanding gases of a fired round impinging on a piston which then cycles the action.
Originally Posted By eracer:
Anything 7.62x51 recoil-operated. Probably an HK91 would be my first choice. Sorry AR lovers, but gas-operated is not the best choice. Wait, recoil operated? WTF you talkin 'bout willis!? my rem597 is recoil operated. I dont think 91s are, you mean piston vs DI? depends, If its in-home my 870. outside, my stag. I have an ak, but right now, im more accurate with my ar(cant hit shit with my ak, need practice!!) and i have one reliable mag for my ak, my ar has 4 100% mags(all of them ).
I say, which ever one you are most confident with/has proven itself already. Any manufacture can put out a lemon, so make sure, whatever you get, that you run it through its paces and make sure its faithful. The HK's recoil operation is simpler (read robust.) Fewer things to go wrong. The AR is a fine rifle, if maintained properly. And the A2 redesign is certainly an improvement over the original Stoner design. The HK still wins. HK 91... most recoil of any semi auto 7.62x51, not optics friendly, not got a good trigger, not got lots of spare paprts floating around, stock too long, its method of delayed bolt unluck is very susceptible to dust and dirt. Its heavy as its all steel. I actually cant think of a single advantage to an HK91... its not even a very accurate rifle. Good luck trying to shoot suppressed. Like I said... its a horrible rifle, one of the very worst choices. It looks cool and is an HK... thats it. On every other point you made...huh? Accuracy? It's not a match rifle, or a sniper rifle. MOA accuracy is not necessary in a battle scenario. But you can modify it to shoot MOA. Just like the AR. It's heavy? OK. Susceptible to dust/dirt? Where do get that idea? The HK91 is far less sensitive to the elements than any AR. Maybe an AK is more robust, but which caliber would you rather have in battle. HK's have been submerged in mud and fired full auto. Had toothpaste squirted into their mags and fired full auto. The standard trigger is heavy, but PSG1 trigger group is an easy and very useful upgrade. Spare parts? What do you need to carry for an AR? More than just a spare spring kit and firing pin. I doubt you'll ever need them, since anyone who knows anything about HK's knows that they just don't break. Harsh recoil? What gun have you shot? Every HK91 I've ever shot is a pleasure. The action is smooth and controllable. Sorry, but to call the HK91 a "horrible rifle" is just ignorant. No offense. |
|
|
|
FYRARMS
Turbocharged
Team Member
Joined: Sep 2003 IL, USA
Posts: 1621 Feedback: 0-0-0 |
Posted: 12/18/2008 2:15:58 PM
Originally Posted By eracer:
Sorry if my choice soils your AR shrine, but the best choice is the one I'd carry into battle. I have and have had many G3s. I love them. 
Would I choose them over any of the better choices? Never. If I had to choose a .308 gun for combat, it would be an FAL or an M1A. G3 = * No last round bolt hold open. * Charging handle too far forward for speedy use. * Even w/paddle mag release, slow mag changes. * Difficult to clean thoroughly. * Heavy as hell. * Poor cheekweld. |
|
|
ARL15EO
Member
Joined: Mar 2007 AR, USA
Posts: 37 Feedback: 0-0-0 |
Posted: 12/18/2008 2:38:50 PM
Anything that puts a hole where I want it.
|
|
|
|
JamesP81
Member
Joined: Nov 2008 KY, USA
Posts: 11 Feedback: 0-0-0 |
Posted: 12/19/2008 11:59:05 AM
ARs are great rifles, but not my first choice for a survival gun. Definitely a very close second, but not absolute first. If money were no object, my survival weapon would be a Springfield Armory M1A SOCOM. Seeing as money is an object, my survival gun at the moment is a Ruger Mini-14. OK, so it prints 3 moa groups. That's more than sufficient to dispatch zombies at 100 yards, and the Ruger will operate well in conditions that other firearms won't operate in at all. It also shoots a common round, so it will be easier to keep supplied on ammunition.
Really, it's too bad that 30 Carbine is not more common. I think that'd be a great all around survival rifle, unless you're in the mountains or in the plains, where you'd probably want an M1A for the range. |
|
|
|
quantim2
Member
Team Member
Joined: Sep 2007 FL, USA
Posts: 487 Feedback: 0-0-0 |
Posted: 12/19/2008 12:05:08 PM
My 6920 with rail and a vfg. Or possibly my 10.5" A2 gun.
|
|
|
|
Andrewsky
Member
Joined: Oct 2007 MN, USA
Posts: 240 Feedback: 0-0-0 |
Posted: 12/19/2008 12:33:08 PM
I would be fine using a FAL, AR-15, AK-47, M14, or G3 that I had tested. They all have advantages and disadvantages. My favorite is the M14. It has a better feel to me than the other ones.
|
|
|
|
JamesP81
Member
Joined: Nov 2008 KY, USA
Posts: 16 Feedback: 0-0-0 |
Posted: 12/19/2008 12:37:53 PM
I've heard really good things about the FAL. If I had a money tree in my front yard, I'd have one by now.
|
|
|
|
01greenmachine
Member
Joined: Dec 2008 WA, USA
Posts: 5 Feedback: 0-0-0 |
Posted: 12/19/2008 1:17:24 PM
Depends on what I had to defend myself against. My Marlin 45/70 guide gun doesn't have the capacity, but inside 100 yards, he he he.
|
|
|
|
FALZILLA
Member
Joined: Dec 2006 AZ, USA
Posts: 156 Feedback: 0-0-0 |
Posted: 12/19/2008 1:31:26 PM
What I would like:
DSA SA58 FAL OSW http://www.dsarms.com/Mini-SA58-FAL-OSW-Rifle-Semi-Auto-308-Cal/productinfo/SA58OSW/ With a 13" barrel and minus the eotech, If my life depends on it it's gotta have an Aimpoint +irons. What I can and have gotten: ARS built AK-47 My AR's are mostly for range use, competition and classes. Can't forget a good knife for finishing things up  |
|
|
|
pilckem
Member
Joined: Jun 2007 AL, USA
Posts: 21 Feedback: 0-0-0 |
Posted: 12/19/2008 8:55:23 PM
My Russian SKS. simple, extremely rugged more so than an AR, better handling and more accurate than an AK. OK it uses stripper clips but these can be loaded pretty quickly with a little practice.
|
|
|
|
jcrowl
Member
Team Member
Joined: Jul 2007 TX, USA
Posts: 1710 Feedback: 0-0-0 |
Posted: 12/19/2008 8:57:38 PM
[Last Edit: 12/19/2008 8:59:02 PM by jcrowl]
M1 Garand, thousands of dead Krauts, Japs ,Commie North Koreans and Chinese Reds can't be wrong!
|
|
|
|
jwb47
Member
Joined: Mar 2008 IL, USA
Posts: 38 Feedback: 0-0-0 |
Posted: 12/19/2008 11:01:58 PM
Originally Posted By M4builder:
Originally Posted By jwb47:
anything not built by a low bid contractor Who are the low bid contractors? Please, share your expertise sir. I wouldn't want to make that mistake, and you obviously have an insight to what is really going on. obviously you have a chip on your shoulder or are looking for a fight . there are over a dozen replys here by people who practically made the same statement that they would only trust what they built there self. unless the department of defense and the major manufactures have changed the way they do buisness , they bid and sub contract work . in 1979 the lower reciever on my goverment issue m16 was stamped hydraumatic division of general motors. it was always a joke that I had a rifle with an automatic transmission. my refrence to a low bid contractor is a joke from murphys rules of combat . when going into battle remember your rifle was built by the low bid contractor. remember if the attack is going well then it probably is an ambush. there is no such thing as friendly fire. if you can see the enemy , he can see you. etc , etc,etc, sorry for rocking your world respectfully jeff |
|
|
|
avatarhammer
Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 251 Feedback: 0-0-0 |
Posted: 12/20/2008 12:13:14 AM
Originally Posted By jwb47:
Originally Posted By M4builder:
Originally Posted By jwb47:
anything not built by a low bid contractor Who are the low bid contractors? Please, share your expertise sir. I wouldn't want to make that mistake, and you obviously have an insight to what is really going on. obviously you have a chip on your shoulder or are looking for a fight . there are over a dozen replys here by people who practically made the same statement that they would only trust what they built there self. unless the department of defense and the major manufactures have changed the way they do buisness , they bid and sub contract work . in 1979 the lower reciever on my goverment issue m16 was stamped hydraumatic division of general motors. it was always a joke that I had a rifle with an automatic transmission. my refrence to a low bid contractor is a joke from murphys rules of combat . when going into battle remember your rifle was built by the low bid contractor. remember if the attack is going well then it probably is an ambush. there is no such thing as friendly fire. if you can see the enemy , he can see you. etc , etc,etc, sorry for rocking your world respectfully jeff Hydramatic. Me too back in Germany, '86. My Firebird only had a Powerglide and I always had the Tranny envy for a T-400. They gave me an M-16A1 instead. Figures, damn thing was a single shot –– gas system was messed up somehow and our armorer wouldn't bother to fix it. My 1911 had a worn slide, and the catch wouldn't lock back. Wouldn't fix that either.  They either didn't like me or thought I was awesome like Chuck Norris or somethin' and could make do. Go figure. My Mp unit didn't get enough live fire trigger time for me to even know there was a problem until half way through my European Vacation. From that I learned to build it myself or test the livin' s@% out of anything I'm gonna depend on. So The Ar sucks.  My War rifle is a Double Star lower with a J&T upper (bbl isn't even chrome lined). It works. Worked too good so I scrapped the DI and went with an ARES piston. I am awesome like Chuck Norris . It also works too good. JIC I've got a whole buch of AK's for Backup.
To the OP's Q? It depends. The AR is fine weapon as long as it is backed up with an intelligent operator in a well equipped and disciplined military structure. If your a moron stay home. For a total s@#$ hit the fan, running guerrilla style, Rise of the Machines, Obamarama clusterf@#$% scenario it is without a doubt spelled –– KALASHNIKOV. 
Now if your Awesome like Chuck Norris it doesn't matter. Anything will do, even a Century built gun. Hell Chuck could even use one of them Speshul forces, Vulcan masterpieces and totally kick a$$. I'm with Chuck  .
|
|
|
|
tbd1966
Member
Joined: May 2006 GA, USA
Posts: 77 Feedback: 0-0-0 |
Posted: 12/20/2008 12:55:42 AM
My SHTF rifle is the M1A. Parts are available, ammunition is plentiful and if the free market falls apart then ammo will be plentiful do to the military and surplus out there.
Accuracy out to 800 yards, stopping power, reliabilty are all top notch. Downside, weight but I can hang with that. Would I want a lighter weapon and ammo at the cost of range and stopping/penetrating power...NO. Frankly my last stand is well equiped and contains a little of everything, If I'm humping then I'll just have to see what I need to do the job and choose accordingly. If I could only have one forever then it will be the M1A |
|
|
|
StraightShooter7
Member
Joined: Mar 2007 TX, USA
Posts: 724 Feedback: 0-0-0 |
Posted: 12/20/2008 1:41:14 AM
6920
|
|
|
|
POLARISGUY
Member
Joined: Aug 2008 OR, USA
Posts: 114 Feedback: 0-0-0 |
Posted: 12/20/2008 2:04:46 AM
Got 3 Ar's for the wife and kids lots of ammo mags and chest rigs. But its a FAL for me.
I would probaly also Grab my 300 win mag also nice sling easy to carry all day and makes one hell of a hole ammo is a little heavy. |
|
|
|
I-N-the-Sky
Member
Joined: Dec 2008  GTM
Posts: 6 Feedback: 0-0-0 |
Posted: 12/20/2008 3:25:05 AM
Sorry Avatarhammer, but your Firebird likely had a Jetaway TS-300 two-speed transmission and not a Powerglide like the Chevies at the time. The Jetaway was a much better transmission. I had one in my '66 Tempest. Ragged the shit out of it, but it always ran like a champ!!! Then I bought a '67 GTO in 1982 with the Hydromatic 400. Yes, that was an improvement! I pulled the 400 engine and replaced it with a 455 bored out to a 462. What a f-ing car!!!
To answer the original post, between my ARs, AKs, M14s, M1 Carbines, etc. I think I would prefer the M-1 Garand for reliability, durabilty, lack of maintenance, and lethality, especially at ranges beyond 100 yrds. For anything between 100 to 50 yrds I would rely on my AKs, M1 Carbine, or ARs and for anything less than 50 yards I would rely on the old 1911. ( Not really too old, a Kimber SuperMatch.) Overall I would chose an M-14, G-3, FAL, an AR in 308, or an M-1 Garand in 308, due to the availability of ammo and its lethality. By the way I do love my "standard" ARs too. Let the flaming begin!!! I am at the mercy of an AR site. Saludos from Guatemala, Ron 
|
|
|
|
eracer
Member
Joined: Dec 2002 FL, USA
Posts: 163 Feedback: 0-0-0 |
Posted: 12/20/2008 8:33:18 AM
Originally Posted By FYRARMS:
Maybe I'm too stuck on the HK's advantages to see its disadvantages.
Originally Posted By eracer:
Sorry if my choice soils your AR shrine, but the best choice is the one I'd carry into battle. I have and have had many G3s. I love them. http://www.imageviper.com/displayimage/88530/0/G3K_IGF2.jpg http://www.imageviper.com/displayimage/83650/0/G3K.jpg http://www.imageviper.com/displayimage/70215/0/G3PIMPED.jpg Would I choose them over any of the better choices? Never. If I had to choose a .308 gun for combat, it would be an FAL or an M1A. G3 = * No last round bolt hold open. * Charging handle too far forward for speedy use. * Even w/paddle mag release, slow mag changes. * Difficult to clean thoroughly. * Heavy as hell. * Poor cheekweld. *Reliability of the AK with a much better cartridge. *Ability to handle NATO and commercial cartridges with differing chamber pressures (like the FAL can - and the M1A can't), but without the FAL's need for a complicated field maintenance kit. Maybe it comes down to my definition of battle, and the need for a weapon that will fire every time, while requiring me to only carry ammo and a simple cleaning kit to make it work. You say it's difficult to clean thoroughly. I would argue that doing so is almost never really necessary. To be honest, like you I would never kick an FN-FAL, M1A, or HK91 off my shoulder. And to be honest, I haven't had practical experience with the FAL, so I'm just parrotting what I've read on other forums (fancy that!) Now if we talking about an M1A1... |
|
|
|
ALPHAGHOST
ARF.com Idiot
Team Member
Joined: Jul 2004 MS, USA
Posts: 28547 Feedback: 0-0-0 |
Posted: 12/21/2008 12:48:22 AM
the one i made
|
|
|
Augee
Member
Team Member
Joined: Sep 2006 SC, USA
Posts: 2124 Feedback: 0-0-0 |
Posted: 12/21/2008 1:33:01 AM
Originally Posted By FALZILLA:
My AR's are mostly for range use, competition and classes. Can't forget a good knife for finishing things up What classes are you talking about? If you are talking about tactical classes... why train with a rifle you don't intend to use? ~Augee |
|
|
|
vicious_cb
Member
Joined: Aug 2005 USA
Posts: 906 Feedback: 0-0-0 |
Posted: 12/21/2008 1:42:29 AM
[Last Edit: 12/21/2008 1:43:50 AM by vicious_cb]
Well if its good enough for the US, Canada and these guys...
 |
|
|
|
Keylock
Member
Joined: Jan 2001 CA, USA
Posts: 1536 Feedback: 0-0-0 |
Posted: 12/21/2008 1:51:44 AM
My LMT MRP.
|
|
|
|
tbd1966
Member
Joined: May 2006 GA, USA
Posts: 79 Feedback: 0-0-0 |
Posted: 12/21/2008 3:03:54 AM
Originally Posted By eracer:
Originally Posted By FYRARMS:
Maybe I'm too stuck on the HK's advantages to see its disadvantages.
Originally Posted By eracer:
Sorry if my choice soils your AR shrine, but the best choice is the one I'd carry into battle. I have and have had many G3s. I love them. http://www.imageviper.com/displayimage/88530/0/G3K_IGF2.jpg http://www.imageviper.com/displayimage/83650/0/G3K.jpg http://www.imageviper.com/displayimage/70215/0/G3PIMPED.jpg Would I choose them over any of the better choices? Never. If I had to choose a .308 gun for combat, it would be an FAL or an M1A. G3 = * No last round bolt hold open. * Charging handle too far forward for speedy use. * Even w/paddle mag release, slow mag changes. * Difficult to clean thoroughly. * Heavy as hell. * Poor cheekweld. *Reliability of the AK with a much better cartridge. *Ability to handle NATO and commercial cartridges with differing chamber pressures (like the FAL can - and the M1A can't), but without the FAL's need for a complicated field maintenance kit. Maybe it comes down to my definition of battle, and the need for a weapon that will fire every time, while requiring me to only carry ammo and a simple cleaning kit to make it work. You say it's difficult to clean thoroughly. I would argue that doing so is almost never really necessary. To be honest, like you I would never kick an FN-FAL, M1A, or HK91 off my shoulder. And to be honest, I haven't had practical experience with the FAL, so I'm just parrotting what I've read on other forums (fancy that!) Now if we talking about an M1A1... I don't know what M1A/M14 you have been firing but my Springfield that I have owned since the 80's eats anything. Commercial or military, belt fed meant for the 60 I have never had a problem with my rifle. It even shoots the hornady tap with no issues. I know that thre are several knockoff M1A's that are not worthy but the Springfield is top notch reliable and consistent. |
|
|
