Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
PSA
Member Login

Site Notices
7/8/2020 3:01:36 PM
Posted: 10/9/2005 6:28:40 PM EDT
Anyone know of any plans by a manufacurer to produce a permanant magazine AR in .308?
Link Posted: 10/9/2005 6:49:18 PM EDT
GB Sales has been saying they will at some point, but not now.  FAB-10 (Shoeless Ventures) has been saying that for about 2 years now, still nothing.
Link Posted: 10/9/2005 9:51:17 PM EDT
I'd take a FAL over the AR10.
Link Posted: 10/10/2005 1:36:18 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Darkest2000:
I'd take a FAL over the AR10.



I'd take an AR10 over a FAL
Link Posted: 10/10/2005 6:47:01 AM EDT
Link Posted: 10/10/2005 8:17:34 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Darkest2000:
I'd take a FAL over the AR10.



And I would get both to go with my M1A's!
Link Posted: 10/11/2005 10:40:51 AM EDT
FALs are much easier.
Link Posted: 10/11/2005 11:45:32 AM EDT
M1A all the way!
Link Posted: 10/11/2005 2:31:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Lon_Moer:
FALs are much easier.




"Much easier"???   Easier than what?
Link Posted: 10/11/2005 8:06:23 PM EDT
Another vote for the M1A.  Why screw around with a top load / break open 10 round slow reload?  I mean, everybody put a bunch of M14 20's away before the ban, didn't they?
Link Posted: 10/11/2005 8:39:15 PM EDT
Because you don't need more than ten rounds for the role in which the AR-10 shines: the semi-auto Sniper rifle...
Link Posted: 10/11/2005 10:36:54 PM EDT
Although I own a LaFrance M-14K, my understanding is that the FAL is a superior weapon for the assault rifle role.  It is generally accepted that the reason the M-14 beat out the FAL in the Army Trials was because of politics - not because the M-14 was the better rifle.  Tuned M-14s are great sniper rifles, but lousy assault rifles (uncontrollable in full auto).  A stock M-14 will not outshoot a FAL.  Also, FAL parts are readily available, as are magazines.  The supply of M-14 parts is drying up because of the government's inane policies on surplus.  GI M-14 mags cost about $40 each these days, which is more than FAL mags.  Unfortunately, I did not have the foresight (or spare money) to have a FAL built for me prior to the 2000 CA Ban.  Those who did are quite fortunate to have a historically significant and extremely accurate and reliable semi-automatic military rifle in their hands.  JMHO.

Link Posted: 10/12/2005 12:31:30 AM EDT
the m14 was never meant to be an assault rifle. the m14 also doesnt have a stupid gas system to dick around with, and in my experience, the m14 will outshoot a FAL. And just because the supply of m14 parts is drying up doesnt somehow make the FAL a better rifle. Im sure FALS are better for some, and M14's are better for others. i just dont think there was ever meant to be an "assault rifle" role for the m14. of course, im expecting to see an AGNTSA picture soon...
Link Posted: 10/12/2005 1:22:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/12/2005 1:22:36 AM EDT by SC_00_05]
IMHO, an M1A would definitely be a better choice.  Something just seems so wrong with taking a perfectly good gun (AR10) or CA FAL and neutering it for CA.  Although I do have a muzzle brake instead of a flash suppressor on my Poly so I'm not completely innocent of it either.  I can't believe my foresight in buying so many M14 mags way back when I thought I didn't even want an M1A.
Link Posted: 10/12/2005 3:13:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By sirbordsalot311:
the m14 was never meant to be an assault rifle.




I may be wrong, but wasn't the M14 developed at the end of WWII as the next step up from the Garand towards the M16? It just never really lost it's cherry as an assault weapon because the lack of conflict of when it was top dog, and by the time conflict came around, the M16 was better and cheaper to produce, not to mention easier to clean and transport so it never really was used as an assault weapon, instead it was adapted as a sniper system.

I do know for a fact that there were full auto M14s built with bipods and high caps just to play a support fire role.
Link Posted: 10/12/2005 8:32:38 AM EDT

Originally Posted By NeoWeird:

Originally Posted By sirbordsalot311:
the m14 was never meant to be an assault rifle.




I may be wrong, but wasn't the M14 developed at the end of WWII as the next step up from the Garand towards the M16? It just never really lost it's cherry as an assault weapon because the lack of conflict of when it was top dog, and by the time conflict came around, the M16 was better and cheaper to produce, not to mention easier to clean and transport so it never really was used as an assault weapon, instead it was adapted as a sniper system.

I do know for a fact that there were full auto M14s built with bipods and high caps just to play a support fire role.



Better hold on, it's gonna be a bumpy ride!      Here......We......GO!
Link Posted: 10/12/2005 7:06:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By sirbordsalot311:
the m14 was never meant to be an assault rifle.



True, because the geniuses in charge of Army Ordnance did not believe in the assault rifle    "concept"

They did not know what to make of the MP-44 and classified it as a "sub-machine gun"

They thought the sole purpose behind the 7.92X33 cartridge was to save on brass

Link Posted: 10/12/2005 7:21:23 PM EDT
Certain concepts are way ahead of their time, and sad to say US military small arm history has being a disappointment one after another. The failure to adopt lever action rifle; failure to accept the concept to put a stupid magazine on the M1 Garand; failure to fully understand the concept of assult rifle, so we come up with M14 while others have FAL and G3s, not to mention AK-47; it's not a big surprise to me why US firearm manufacturer are in their current situation right now. Other then AR-15 (which is being designed back in the 60's), not really anything "innovative" from design stand point has being coming from this country for that last 20 years.

As for FAL vs. AR-10 vs. M1A, Since we suckers are in PRK,  my vote will go to M1A as you don't have to deal with stupid top loading/break loading BS. Otherwise, my vote will be for AR-10 as it can be as versatile on configuration and adding accessories as AR-15.
Link Posted: 10/12/2005 9:06:52 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/12/2005 9:07:12 PM EDT by AyeGuy]

Originally Posted By CWM4A1:
Certain concepts are way ahead of their time, and sad to say US military small arm history has being a disappointment one after another. The failure to adopt lever action rifle; failure to accept the concept to put a stupid magazine on the M1 Garand; failure to fully understand the concept of assult rifle, so we come up with M14 while others have FAL and G3s, not to mention AK-47; it's not a big surprise to me why US firearm manufacturer are in their current situation right now. Other then AR-15 (which is being designed back in the 60's), not really anything "innovative" from design stand point has being coming from this country for that last 20 years.

As for FAL vs. AR-10 vs. M1A, Since we suckers are in PRK,  my vote will go to M1A as you don't have to deal with stupid top loading/break loading BS. Otherwise, my vote will be for AR-10 as it can be as versatile on configuration and adding accessories as AR-15.



You forgot to mention the magazine cut-off that turned the M1903 Springfield from a magazine-fed repeater into a single-shot rifle, because they were afraid the troops would "waste ammo"  
Link Posted: 10/12/2005 11:49:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/13/2005 12:36:45 AM EDT by hycheng]
I have both DSA FAL and M1A socom. I'll take a detechable magazine socom anyday.
Link Posted: 10/13/2005 4:43:21 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/13/2005 4:44:07 AM EDT by gs430]
I would take a sharp stick over a AR-10. At least the stick is reliable....

FAL vs. M1A - Being fortunate enough to own both (in duplicate), I would definitely pick the FAL for a SHTF situation. It's just a better all around weapon IMO. Don't get me wrong, I love both of my M1As but the FAL just has a lot of advantages (ergonomics, function, parts availiblity, price, easier to clean, easily adjustable gas system to handle various ammo, etc.) Although a SAGE/M1A setup is pretty nice...but I can buy a complete FAL for the cost of the SAGE stock alone (without a M1A to attach it to)

If I had to buy one of the two now, I would build up a fixed 10-round FAL (now that kits are widely available once again). You can get that Tapco Stripper Clip Scope Mount along with a short scope (like a Aimpoint, EOTech, Elcan, MiniACOG, etc.) and you will be able to easily reload the gun without any sort of hassles...with some practice, you can probably load it as fast as sticking in a fresh mag (granted, it's only 10 rounds vs. 20 rounds...) You can get 10 round .308/7.62 stripper clips from DSA for $1/ea. Cheaper than FAL or M1A mags even before the '94 Klinton ban!

Link Posted: 10/13/2005 9:03:07 PM EDT
Doesn't the stripper-clip cover for the FAL leave the entire operating mechanism somewhat exposed to debris ingress?
Link Posted: 10/14/2005 12:16:30 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/14/2005 11:48:51 PM EDT by gs430]

Originally Posted By AyeGuy:
Doesn't the stripper-clip cover for the FAL leave the entire operating mechanism somewhat exposed to debris ingress?



It sure does but I'm pretty sure a FAL, much like an AK, can handle it. It's not a AR!

Don't know about you, but I don't plan on doing any mud womping with this FAL...ok, maybe a little bit. Seriously though, have you see what Bandit's (I think it was his) FAL went through...thousands of rounds without cleaning, some intentional abuse using the surrounding environment, etc., etc...and the gun ran pretty flawlessly.

I think the rising cost of .308 ammo should be a bigger concern...
Top Top