Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 9/28/2004 5:30:44 AM EST
Which ones have adjustable gas systems?

Are adjustable gas systems all that important to reliability?



Which is the most accrate out of the box?

Which is the least accurate out of the box?



Which is more reliable?

Which is least reliable?



Which is the heaviest?

Which is the lightest?



Which has the cheapest mags?

Which has the most costly mags?


If you guy's could answer some (if not all) of these questions for me I would much appreciate it.

Thanks.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 5:37:59 AM EST

Originally Posted By Sniper_408:
Which ones have adjustable gas systems?
FN/FAL
Are adjustable gas systems all that important to reliability?

Yes

Which is the most accrate out of the box?
Depends on Barrel length, M1A
Which is the least accurate out of the box?
G3


Which is more reliable?
Depends on brand.
Which is least reliable?
Depends on brand, see Speciul Weepons.


Which is the heaviest?
FN? 11 pounds or so.
Which is the lightest?

AR10

Which has the cheapest mags?
FN/FAL $5
Which has the most costly mags?

AR10
If you guy's could answer some (if not all) of these questions for me I would much appreciate it.

Thanks.

Link Posted: 9/28/2004 5:38:13 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/28/2004 5:41:34 AM EST by BB]
Do you always ask someone else to do your research for you?

Which ones have adjustable gas systems? FAL

Are adjustable gas systems all that important to reliability? Can't hurt



Which is the most accrate out of the box? AR10(T), M1A(M21)

Which is the least accurate out of the box? all the entry level variants will shoot 1.5MOA

Which is more reliable? All about the same

Which is least reliable? see above

Which is the heaviest? Target versions of each;

Which is the lightest? lightweight versions are all around 9lbs

Which has the cheapest mags? FAL

Which has the most costly mags? AR10
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 5:40:05 AM EST

Originally Posted By BB:
Do you always ask someone else to do your research for you?




No, just this time.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 5:40:27 AM EST
I'm not particularly knowledgable about the AR10, but I can tell you a little about the HK91 and the FAL.

The FAL has an adjustable gas system, the HK does not. The HK does not have a gas system at all - but uses a delayed recoil/blowback system (with ingenius locking rollers) and a fluted chamber. The HK ejected casings much further than the FAL.

My impression is that the accuracy is about the same between a "normal" HK and a normal FAL - it's a little hard to say because there are so many clones out there (and you can get really shitty HKs and FALs made by Hesse or Century that are probably not very accurate). Factory HK or FN rifles are probably pretty accurate for a 7.62 "battle rifle"

I'm sure you can look up the weight. I've found the FAL to "Feel" a little heavier - but I'm sure you can find the exact numbers.

I don't really know about reliability, since I've never really mistreated a FAL. My FAL was a little finiscky about the ammo it would eat. I thought the G3 I was issued in the Danish army was very reliable (and I like the very simple design, that IMO makes it inherently more reliable) - but I'm sure others can answer the question better.

Mags have become ridiculously cheap for both - so I don't think that's an issue.

I think the sights might be SLIGHTLY better on the FAL - but the HK sights are also pretty good.

Some peope do not like the ergonomics of the HK as much. Personally, it didn't fit wonderfully well for me, and I would sometimes get whanged on the cheekbone with the back of receiver/stock. I thknk you'd be best served to actually shoot both before you consider buying - since you can only get so much from an academic comparison.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 5:41:44 AM EST

Originally Posted By sonofbp:

Originally Posted By Sniper_408:
Which ones have adjustable gas systems?
FN/FAL
Are adjustable gas systems all that important to reliability?

Yes

Which is the most accrate out of the box?
Depends on Barrel length, M1A
Which is the least accurate out of the box?
G3


Which is more reliable?
Depends on brand.
Which is least reliable?
Depends on brand, see Speciul Weepons.


Which is the heaviest?
FN? 11 pounds or so.
Which is the lightest?

AR10

Which has the cheapest mags?
FN/FAL $5
Which has the most costly mags?

AR10
If you guy's could answer some (if not all) of these questions for me I would much appreciate it.

Thanks.




see above.

FN-FAL would be my choice. It's the best all around rifle for the price. In fact, you could get 2 for the price of 1 of the others!
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 5:41:55 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/28/2004 5:42:06 AM EST by 2whiskeyP]
Get both all four!
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 5:42:03 AM EST

Originally Posted By sonofbp:

Originally Posted By Sniper_408:
Which ones have adjustable gas systems?
FN/FAL
Are adjustable gas systems all that important to reliability?

Yes

Which is the most accrate out of the box?
Depends on Barrel length, M1A
Which is the least accurate out of the box?
G3


Which is more reliable?
Depends on brand.
Ok, assuming they are the origional brand's (i.e. HK, FN, Springfield, Armalite)
Which is least reliable?
See above

Which is the heaviest?
FN? 11 pounds or so.
Which is the lightest?

AR10

Which has the cheapest mags?
FN/FAL $5
Which has the most costly mags?

AR10
If you guy's could answer some (if not all) of these questions for me I would much appreciate it.

Thanks.


Link Posted: 9/28/2004 5:45:31 AM EST

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
I'm not particularly knowledgable about the AR10, but I can tell you a little about the HK91 and the FAL.

The FAL has an adjustable gas system, the HK does not. The HK does not have a gas system at all - but uses a delayed recoil/blowback system (with ingenius locking rollers) and a fluted chamber. The HK ejected casings much further than the FAL.

My impression is that the accuracy is about the same between a "normal" HK and a normal FAL - it's a little hard to say because there are so many clones out there (and you can get really shitty HKs and FALs made by Hesse or Century that are probably not very accurate). Factory HK or FN rifles are probably pretty accurate for a 7.62 "battle rifle"

I'm sure you can look up the weight. I've found the FAL to "Feel" a little heavier - but I'm sure you can find the exact numbers.

I don't really know about reliability, since I've never really mistreated a FAL. My FAL was a little finiscky about the ammo it would eat. I thought the G3 I was issued in the Danish army was very reliable (and I like the very simple design, that IMO makes it inherently more reliable) - but I'm sure others can answer the question better.

Mags have become ridiculously cheap for both - so I don't think that's an issue.

I think the sights might be SLIGHTLY better on the FAL - but the HK sights are also pretty good.

Some peope do not like the ergonomics of the HK as much. Personally, it didn't fit wonderfully well for me, and I would sometimes get whanged on the cheekbone with the back of receiver/stock. I thknk you'd be best served to actually shoot both before you consider buying - since you can only get so much from an academic comparison.



Does your country allow you to own assault rifles and other weapons? You know, kind of like the Swiss are able to.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 5:47:08 AM EST
Forgot my choice:
I like FALs. I've had a DSA carbine, STG58 and Izzi HB. BUT, I think I'm going AR10 because I like the option of different uppers, cheaper carbine configuration (AR10 telestock is cheaper than Para FAL stock) and the accuracy of the AR10 is potentially MUCH higher than the FAL. AND, standard 20round magazines will be cheaper soon.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 5:47:52 AM EST

Originally Posted By BB:
Forgot my choice:
I like FALs. I've had a DSA carbine, STG58 and Izzi HB. BUT, I think I'm going AR10 because I like the option of different uppers, cheaper carbine configuration (AR10 telestock is cheaper than Para FAL stock) and the accuracy of the AR10 is potentially MUCH higher than the FAL. AND, standard 20round magazines will be cheaper soon.



Thanks for the imput.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 5:47:56 AM EST

Originally Posted By Sniper_408:

Originally Posted By sonofbp:

Originally Posted By Sniper_408:
Which ones have adjustable gas systems?
FN/FAL
Are adjustable gas systems all that important to reliability?

Yes

Which is the most accrate out of the box?
Depends on Barrel length, M1A
Which is the least accurate out of the box?
G3


Which is more reliable?
Depends on brand.
Ok, assuming they are the origional brand's (i.e. HK, FN, Springfield, Armalite)
Springfields SARs (FNFAL)are almost all marked MATCH 308, and I've had some trigger time to convince me it isn't just a stamping.
Which is least reliable?
See aboveAll comparable.

Which is the heaviest?
FN? 11 pounds or so.
Which is the lightest?

AR10

Which has the cheapest mags?
FN/FAL $5
Which has the most costly mags?

AR10
If you guy's could answer some (if not all) of these questions for me I would much appreciate it.

Thanks.



Link Posted: 9/28/2004 5:51:12 AM EST
M1a
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 9:00:11 AM EST

Originally Posted By Sniper_408:
Does your country allow you to own assault rifles and other weapons? You know, kind of like the Swiss are able to.



Pretty much nothing is allowed in Denmark - except for hunting and sporting use, but they've got a national guard where people keep their weapons and ammo at home (both select-fire assault rifles and belt-fed MGs).

Now that I live in the U.S. I've got plenty - and ocasionally send pictures of myself with my ARs to torment my old army buddies back in the old country
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 9:06:50 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 9:19:51 AM EST
like my FAL...cheap mags, easy to break down and clean and adjustable gas system allows me to tweak it to operate best with whatever loads I am using. good luck
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 9:26:43 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/28/2004 9:28:15 AM EST by DriftPunch]

Originally Posted By Sniper_408:


Which ones have adjustable gas systems?[/qutoe]
HK91/G3S- No gas system period
M1A/M14S- Not adjustable
FAL/L1A1- Adjustable
AR10- Not adjustable

[Are adjustable gas systems all that important to reliability?


No... They can serve to slow the bolt speed (reducing wear) and adapt for different power levels of different ammo. However, all 3 gas systems are robust enough to take full power 7.62 *51 ammo.


Which is the most accrate out of the box?

AR10


Which is the least accurate out of the box?

Probably the G3, but not by much.


Which is more reliable?
G3 No gas system helps a lot. I also understand that the G3s accuracy is the least vulneralbe to accuracy degrading due to wear. I have read authors who should know that state that G3s that have spent many years in the bush firing unknown numbers of rounds are nearly as accurate as new ones.


Which is least reliable?
AR10 The accuracy comes with a price.


Which is the heaviest?
FAL VERY well made out of bar stock steel produces a masterpiece of complex engineering, but adds some weight as well.


Which is the lightest?
AR10 Aluminum helps...


Which has the cheapest mags?
You can find FAL & G3 mags for 5-10 dollars at gun shows around here...


Which has the most costly mags?
M1A & AR10, but new production could really drive it down.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 9:27:31 AM EST
Buy them all.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 10:47:24 AM EST

Start with a DSA FAL. It is high quality and the lowest cost of the bunch (if you are buying only quality). The STG58 goes for just under $1000.

Link Posted: 9/28/2004 10:55:14 AM EST
If I could have only one, I would have an M1A...and that is why I have it.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 10:57:22 AM EST
G3 mags are dirt cheap. I've seen them going for $2 lately at CTD.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 10:58:55 AM EST
Before you make your decision, do one thing: Go out and buy a copy of Boston's Gun Bible.
He already went down this path and wrote it down.
Only thing that will be different from the publication is magazine availability and cost.
Hopefully, that will be changing for a few models in the next few months but that is anybody's guess right now.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 11:09:31 AM EST

Originally Posted By DriftPunch:

Which is the least accurate out of the box?

Probably the G3, but not by much.



From what I've seen and read, the FAL and M1A would probably be least accurate out of the box. I'm assuming H&K-91 quality here, not some junk clone.

The M1A offers lots of potential for improved accuracy (up to 1 MOA, but not really any better than that), but that includes a full bedding. The USMC rifle team would rebed their M1As after about 800 rounds. So a match 1 MOA M1A ain't going to be a 1 MOA M1A for long . . .

The advantage the M1A does have, however, the advantage of being a US "service rifle" from the NRA/CMP perspective, and the resulting gunsmiths and resources devoted to making it shoot.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 11:12:45 AM EST

Originally Posted By Wave:
I have an AR-10 and a Fulton Armory M14...looking for a FAL now




Resistance is futile!

Come to the dark side!

I have an AR10 and at last count 3 FAL's (G1, IZZY, DSA STG58) but neither of the other 2 although I have always wanted an M1A!

The AR10 is more versatile as far as upper options go but the FAL would be hard to beat for reliability (since you left AK47 of the list!).

BigDozer66
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 11:16:49 AM EST

Originally Posted By A-nus:
Buy them all.



I'm trying to!

BigDozer66
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 11:25:53 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/28/2004 11:27:48 AM EST by DonS]

Which ones have adjustable gas systems?
FAL.


Are adjustable gas systems all that important to reliability?
Probably not, but they are not a bad thing either.


Which is the most accrate out of the box?
The AR. And its accuracy offers the most potential for improvement at the lowest cost.


Which is the least accurate out of the box?
I believe that that is a tie between the M1A and the FAL. However, lots of resources exist to improve M1A accuracy. But M1A accuracy degrades relatively quickly, requiring rebedding.



Which is more reliable?
Probably the G-3/H&K-91.


Which is least reliable?
Competition M1As break a lot compared to ARs. The G-3 features a sheet metal reciever that might be prone to denting. I'm not talking "reliable" here per-say, but durable.

To actually answer your question, if we were to talk mil-spec M-14, G-3 (or H&K-91), or mil spec FAL, vs. the civy AR-10, I'd have to say that the AR-10 is the least reliable. When you start talking civy clones the M-14s, FALs, etc., the limiting reliability factor is the quality of the manufacter. I've always considered H&K MP-5s to be very reliable, but I know of some US made MP-5 clones that are, uh, junk (hope I don't get a lawsuit for saying so).


Which is the heaviest?
Not sure, but something with as much wood as the M1A will have a weight range, not a fixed weight.



Which has the cheapest mags?
Right now the G-3 seems to be cheapest. The FAL is close, I think this varies day to day. Some .308 AR varients use FAL mags.

Link Posted: 9/28/2004 11:28:56 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/28/2004 11:29:53 AM EST by cnatra]
well I've owned all but the HK, sold the M1A & Armalite & I currently have 3 FAL's


my first choice for all around .308 SHTF rifle would be the FAL


if your wanting more accuracy & the best optics paltform consider an AR10
(with the expense of reliability from my personal experience)

OR one of the other .308 AR alternatives from DPMS or Bushmaster
(I'm thinking about selling one of my FAL rifles to try a DPMS or Bushmaster .308)
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 11:29:48 AM EST
go read this:

http://www.doing-freedom.com/gen/0702/brifle.html


i'd go w/ a g-3 if they were origional H&K and cheaper!
second: M-1A if SA would get QUALITY parts today
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 11:36:43 AM EST


Heckler and Koch Model 91 7.62 x 51mm w/ E&L Stock extension/cheek rest, ARMS claw mount, Leupold Rings and a Tasco 16X "Super Sniper" Scope



100 yard targets. Australian Military Surplus ammunition 7.62 X 51mm 144 grain FMJ bullet.

Fired on 4-18-2004



200 yard targets shot with Federal Premium .308 Win. 165 grain Sierra Game King.

Notice that the distribution at 200 yards with the Factory ammunition is the same as the surplus ammunition at 100 yards.



This was a very frustrating day. It was hot, over 98f and we had a slight wind. It was hot enough that the target was obscured by the shimmering heat mirage rising off the ground.

In the above target, my breathing caused the up and down spread.

It was approximately 13 inches low because I had the rifle set up for 100 yard shooting. I needed to bring it up around 10-13 clicks.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 11:45:16 AM EST

Originally Posted By SC-Texas:
It was approximately 13 inches low because I had the rifle set up for 100 yard shooting. I needed to bring it up around 10-13 clicks.



It typically takes two minutes (2 MOA) of come-ups to go from 100 yards to 200. So, if you are dead on at 100, you should hit about 4 inches low at 200. If you are hitting 13 inches low something is wrong (sorry, but I hope this helps).

By the way, to go from 200 to 300 you need 5 MOA of come-ups. To go from 300 to 600 you need 11 MOA. And it doesn't much matter if you are using .223, .308, or .30-06. All are about the same.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 6:05:06 PM EST
I think the scope has 1/4 moa clicks.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 7:05:45 PM EST

SC-Texas, your ARMS mount looks like a Tapco cast version. Regardless, it could be loose.


Link Posted: 9/28/2004 7:09:53 PM EST
tag
Link Posted: 9/29/2004 10:34:54 AM EST

Originally Posted By Robert2011:
SC-Texas, your ARMS mount looks like a Tapco cast version. Regardless, it could be loose.



Uh, No. Looks can be deceiving.

Its a $225.00 ARMS G3 Claw mount bought from MountsPlus.

It also returns to zero everytime I put it on and off. The rifle is not stored withthe scope mounted so I have tested the RTZ capaboilities of the mount extensively.

When I turn the turret, the POI moves and when I return the turret to its zero position, the POI returns to zero.
Link Posted: 9/29/2004 10:36:44 AM EST

Originally Posted By DonS:

Originally Posted By SC-Texas:
It was approximately 13 inches low because I had the rifle set up for 100 yard shooting. I needed to bring it up around 10-13 clicks.



It typically takes two minutes (2 MOA) of come-ups to go from 100 yards to 200. So, if you are dead on at 100, you should hit about 4 inches low at 200. If you are hitting 13 inches low something is wrong (sorry, but I hope this helps).

By the way, to go from 200 to 300 you need 5 MOA of come-ups. To go from 300 to 600 you need 11 MOA. And it doesn't much matter if you are using .223, .308, or .30-06. All are about the same.



Don,

13 inches low at 300 yards for a 100 yard zero? Is this that far off?
Link Posted: 9/29/2004 10:38:32 AM EST
Here's what I'm gonna do this weekend.

I'll check the zero at 100 yards.

Then, I'll move the POI up a couple o fclicks at a time and see what happens and if it returns to zero.
Link Posted: 9/29/2004 10:38:39 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/29/2004 10:42:10 AM EST by norman74]
Link Posted: 9/29/2004 10:48:24 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/29/2004 10:49:46 AM EST by DonS]

Originally Posted By SC-Texas:

Originally Posted By DonS:

Originally Posted By SC-Texas:
It was approximately 13 inches low because I had the rifle set up for 100 yard shooting. I needed to bring it up around 10-13 clicks.



It typically takes two minutes (2 MOA) of come-ups to go from 100 yards to 200. So, if you are dead on at 100, you should hit about 4 inches low at 200. If you are hitting 13 inches low something is wrong (sorry, but I hope this helps).

By the way, to go from 200 to 300 you need 5 MOA of come-ups (this is a typo: 200 to 300 is 3 MOA; 100 to 300 is 5 MOA). To go from 300 to 600 you need 11 MOA. And it doesn't much matter if you are using .223, .308, or .30-06. All are about the same.



Don,

13 inches low at 300 yards for a 100 yard zero? Is this that far off?



Here is the come-ups in MOA and inches:

100 to 200 yards 2 MOA (4 inches @ 200 yards)

200 to 300 yards 3 MOA (9 inches @ 300 yards)

300 to 600 yards 11 MOA (66 inches @ 600 yards)

Note that I made a typo in my origional post on this, which I highlighted in red.

If you are sighted in for 100 yards, you should be hitting about 5 MOA (15 inches) low at 300. So if your shots that were about 13 inches low were actually fired at around 300 yards using a 100 yard zero, that should be about right.
Link Posted: 9/29/2004 10:56:16 AM EST

Originally Posted By SC-Texas:

Originally Posted By DonS:

Originally Posted By SC-Texas:
It was approximately 13 inches low because I had the rifle set up for 100 yard shooting. I needed to bring it up around 10-13 clicks.



It typically takes two minutes (2 MOA) of come-ups to go from 100 yards to 200. So, if you are dead on at 100, you should hit about 4 inches low at 200. If you are hitting 13 inches low something is wrong (sorry, but I hope this helps).

By the way, to go from 200 to 300 you need 5 MOA of come-ups. To go from 300 to 600 you need 11 MOA. And it doesn't much matter if you are using .223, .308, or .30-06. All are about the same.



Don,

13 inches low at 300 yards for a 100 yard zero? Is this that far off?



Sorry, I though you indicated you were shooting at 200 yards, but looking back at your post your 200 yard reference was related to group size of different ammo types, and the target with the 13" low impacts was at 300 yards. My "rule of thumb" is 5 MOA going from 100 to 300, which is 15", but that's just a rule of thumb to get you with 1 MOA or so. Essentially, you bullets are striking where they should, sorry again (for missreading your post).
Link Posted: 9/29/2004 11:00:53 AM EST

Originally Posted By DonS:

Originally Posted By SC-Texas:

Originally Posted By DonS:

Originally Posted By SC-Texas:
It was approximately 13 inches low because I had the rifle set up for 100 yard shooting. I needed to bring it up around 10-13 clicks.



It typically takes two minutes (2 MOA) of come-ups to go from 100 yards to 200. So, if you are dead on at 100, you should hit about 4 inches low at 200. If you are hitting 13 inches low something is wrong (sorry, but I hope this helps).

By the way, to go from 200 to 300 you need 5 MOA of come-ups (this is a typo: 200 to 300 is 3 MOA; 100 to 300 is 5 MOA). To go from 300 to 600 you need 11 MOA. And it doesn't much matter if you are using .223, .308, or .30-06. All are about the same.



Don,

13 inches low at 300 yards for a 100 yard zero? Is this that far off?



Here is the come-ups in MOA and inches:

100 to 200 yards 2 MOA (4 inches @ 200 yards)

200 to 300 yards 3 MOA (9 inches @ 300 yards)

300 to 600 yards 11 MOA (66 inches @ 600 yards)

Note that I made a typo in my origional post on this, which I highlighted in red.

If you are sighted in for 100 yards, you should be hitting about 5 MOA (15 inches) low at 300. So if your shots that were about 13 inches low were actually fired at around 300 yards using a 100 yard zero, that should be about right.



Thanks for the scope adjustment listings DonS, and SC Texas, I have been looking for some sort standard for adjusting a scope to the afore mentioned distances. Also, would you all know of any good books on how to become better at using scopes at longer distances(re: how to judge wind speed, elevation, breatheing correctly, ect.)?
Link Posted: 9/29/2004 11:02:31 AM EST

Originally Posted By norman74:
Goddamnit. Stop saying the FAL is the heaviest. I swear to christ you people need to do a bit of research.


22" barrel standard M1a 9.2 lbs
vs.
21" barrel SA58 Standard 8.75 lbs


18" barrel Scout M1a 9 lbs
vs.
18" Barrel SA58 Congo 8.6lbs


16" barrel Socom M1a 8.9 lbs
vs.
16.25" Barrel SA58 Carbine 8.35 lbs
or
16.25" barrel SA58 Tactical Carbine 8.25 lbs




Ah....let the truth be known Norman74! I thought the FAL types might be getting a bad wrap but didn't know where to look to prove otherwise..
Link Posted: 9/29/2004 11:13:29 AM EST

Originally Posted By Sniper_408:
Ah....let the truth be known Norman74! I thought the FAL types might be getting a bad wrap but didn't know where to look to prove otherwise..



I just put that post together the other day for another thread. I'm going to have to save it somewhere so I don't have to keep re-researching it everytime someone posts this nonsense.

11 pounds my ass.
Link Posted: 9/29/2004 11:20:27 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/29/2004 11:24:54 AM EST by DonS]

Originally Posted By Sniper_408:
Thanks for the scope adjustment listings DonS, and SC Texas, I have been looking for some sort standard for adjusting a scope to the afore mentioned distances. Also, would you all know of any good books on how to become better at using scopes at longer distances(re: how to judge wind speed, elevation, breatheing correctly, ect.)?



If you notice, I gave the numbers for going to 200, 300, and 600. Those are the common NRA Highpower distances. I suggest getting involved in NRA Highpower shooting if you are interested in becoming a good long range shot.

Here is come-up table I got from an on line ballistic computer (it had windage adjustments, but someone questioned them so I want to verify before posting):

Range ComeUps
yds (MOAs)
100 0
200 2
300 5
400 8
500 12
600 16
700 22
800 28
900 35
1000 44

Note: the come-ups above are all from 100 yards.


As far as books go, a good place to start is Jim Owen's books:

www.jarheadtop.com/

This site has lots of good links:

arizona.rifleshooting.com/

Zeidiker publishing has a good book by David Tubb as well as a good book on competition ARs:
www.zediker.com/books/highpowerrifle/hprmain.html

"Modern Highpower Competition"; by Randolph Constantine, is another good book, but I don't have a link handy.
Link Posted: 9/29/2004 11:43:59 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/29/2004 11:54:45 AM EST by AShooter]

Originally Posted By Sniper_408:

...If you guy's could answer some (if not all) of these questions for me I would much appreciate it.

Thanks.




The specifics of your questions have been answered pretty well so I won't waste time going over them one by one. But I have owned all but the HK variant - a custom GA Precision 20" med-heavy barreled AR10, an Arizona Response Systems FAL "bush rifle", and a home-built rack-grade LRB M14 built with USGI parts, a Wilson chrome-lined USGI weight barrel, and using the USGI iron sights. All high quality rifle systems, but I've sold off the AR10 and am trying to sell the FAL.

With the M14 - if I can see it, I can hit it. It carries well and points well. I never heard anybody bitching about reliability from the Vietnam era (I personally think the "problems" spoken of in Iraq have to do with lack of training on the M14 system and/or lack of spare parts). My LRB is a good deal more accurate than the FAL and actually weighs almost exactly the same as my 20" govt profile flat-top AR15 (with a Leupold 1.5-5x in a Larue mount) - right at 9 lbs. I feel it's the best balance of reliability, ergonomics, and accuracy... for me.

The AR10 was hands-down more accurate (under 1 MOA with match ammo), but felt clumsy to me. The FAL may be a tad lighter and little more reliable, but only shoots 3-4 MOA with the same ammo that the M14 puts at or under 2 MOA (both using iron sights). Also, "reliability" is kind of relative. I mean, the AR10 may run 500 rds in the field without cleaning before something breaks, the M14 may run 2000 rds, and the FAL may run 3000 rds...but how likely is that to be a real factor, even to a grunt living in the bush?

Biggest tip I can give is to stay away from cheapy versions of ANY of these systems - you get what you pay for. Century Arms is a cheapy to avoid in regards to the FAL/HK types, and Springfield Armory qualifies as "cheapy" in regards to the M1A/M14, at least that is what I hear about those made in the last few years which use a lot of cast non-USGI parts.

Good luck!

AShooter


Top Top