SHTF 308NATO.... AR10 or M1A???? - Page 2

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - SHTF 308NATO.... AR10 or M1A???? (Page 2 of 3)

Posted: 3/26/2006 5:01:06 PM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
Yo Ho Ho, it's an M14 for me. AAAAAARRRGH!!!

In the long run I think it will be more durable as it was designed for that caliber.

What do you think the original AR was designed for?

Posted: 3/26/2006 5:02:39 PM EDT

[#2]

I've owned a .308 M1 Garand, an FAL, and several M1As. I'd be happy with any of them, but for long-range precision work, the FAL ain't it.

Don't know much about AR10s, but I've never completely trusted the AR15 design, so I think I'd pass on an AR10.

Posted: 3/26/2006 5:20:33 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
BTW, Remington makes an autoloader .308 -- should we call it an AR-10 too? Or maybe we should call all PTR-91's -- HK91's? How hard is it to refer to the different makers by their chosen nomenclature?

By your harsh definition then, there are no AR-10's on the civilian market. Unless you have an original model made by the original Armalite company many years ago.

Posted: 3/26/2006 5:21:31 PM EDT

[#4]

FAL

Posted: 3/26/2006 5:51:33 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
Quoted:

In the long run I think it will be more durable as it was designed for that caliber.

BWAAAHAAHAAHAHAAAA!!!!

Ya miss my thinking. The original design [yes, wrong matls] was problematic and did cause some injuries. [blown BBLS] Hell, some of the new ones were less then reliable and bolts broke because FAL mags were used.

It was DESIGNED as a ,308 but perfected in 5.56.

Posted: 3/26/2006 5:53:35 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
I would get an HK91 or a FAL.

Those were not among the listed choices. Whey do people always do this?

Posted: 3/26/2006 5:55:12 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
Yo Ho Ho, it's an M14 for me. AAAAAARRRGH!!!

In the long run I think it will be more durable as it was designed for that caliber. And it is a very nicely balanced weapon.

Now that decent rails are being made for it, optics are a wash and the M14 battle sights are hard to beat.

The AR10 is not designed for .308/7.62x51? It's not balanced? The sights are not as good as the M1A?

Posted: 3/26/2006 5:57:13 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I would get an HK91 or a FAL.

I agree- have read enough about mag problems and mag prices with the AR-10, OH, you READ about them. as well as overall concerns about the lug design not being strong enough to endure the .308's power Duh, that would be the Bushy .308, not the AR10, while it worked for 5.56 caliber guns. Duh, the original AR10 was designed before the AR15.

I would choose the M1-A, but as makers like Springfield Armory are now using cast parts, I've read about plenty of people having early failures.

I think a DSA FAL would be the best choice on the consumer market now, as many HK's come from shady sources these days as well.

How about educating yourself before you make such statements.

Posted: 3/26/2006 6:03:06 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Just got done doing some searching over on Battlerifles.com

Lots of threads about the AR10 being unreliable.... None about the M1A... the FAL doesn't look like a very comfortable ergonomic rifle from the pics (but I wouldn't make that call til I actually got to handle one) I am used to the AR15, so that was why I was thinking AR10 (ergoes & such).

But after searching the posts on the other board, I now have doubts about AR10 reliability (and that is an important issue as this would be a SHTF gun)

Posts on boards???????? Any from anyone with any real experience with the AR10? I have 4 that are completely reliable.

Posted: 3/26/2006 6:03:37 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
M1a. There is no way that an AR10 under harsh field conditions would survive as long as an M1a.

And you know this how?

Posted: 3/26/2006 6:05:27 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
Quoted:
BTW, Remington makes an autoloader .308 -- should we call it an AR-10 too? Or maybe we should call all PTR-91's -- HK91's? How hard is it to refer to the different makers by their chosen nomenclature?

By your harsh definition then, there are no AR-10's on the civilian market. Unless you have an original model made by the original Armalite company many years ago.

Maybe you'll re-read what I wrote.

Armalite{Eagle Arms} owns the patents and trademarks associated with AR-10, AR-10B, AR-10(T), AR-10A4, AR-10A2, etc.....

Their rifles are marked as such. No other company does this legally. Though it's deeper than that. No other weapon is an AR-10. Just like we don't call all bolt guns Rem700's, even though they are probably one of the most popular.

Bushmaster marked their rifles BAR-10. They changed it to Bushmaster .308 after the lawyers got involved, and got richer.

RRA marked theirs as LAR-10, the lawyers will most likely see some cash coming soon.

Posted: 3/26/2006 6:06:45 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I would get an HK91 or a FAL.

I agree- have read enough about mag problems and mag prices with the AR-10, as well as overall concerns about the lug design not being strong enough to endure the .308's power, while it worked for 5.56 caliber guns.

I would choose the M1-A, but as makers like Springfield Armory are now using cast parts, I've read about plenty of people having early failures.

I think a DSA FAL would be the best choice on the consumer market now, as many HK's come from shady sources these days as well.

You sound like you dont know squat about the AR10.

The AR design is inherantly accurate all by itself. Go to a Highpower match. The majority are/have switched over to AR's. The first AR invented was a .308 (AR180), It was changed to .556 to allow Soldiers to carry more ammo.

As far as the FAL's I don't know, But I will add I've never seen anyone with one at a rifle match.

Maybe I don't know squat about the AR-10, but unlike you, I pay attention to posters here who do know squat, and then some. Some pretty knowldegeable people here, (if I'm not mistaken, Brouhaha, of the Ammo oracle among them, but I may have him confused with another knowldegeable poster) have raised concern about the internal design of the AR-10 and the number and strength of the locking lugs being an issue. And yes, I'm well aware of the AR-10 having been a .308 design at first, once again proving I at least listen to those who know squat.

If you need more expert opinion from someone who knows more than "squat" about the AR-10, ask Bushmaster about their AR-10's, and why they aren't carrying them anymore.

You need to go back and read. The concerns on the lug on a .308 were about the Bushmaster using FAL mags.

I have 4 AR10s. Completely reliable.

Bushmaster never made an AR10. The made a .308 AR using FAL mags that, again, were the ones with the lug problem.

You still don't know squat.

Posted: 3/26/2006 6:08:26 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I would get an HK91 or a FAL.

I agree- have read enough about mag problems and mag prices with the AR-10, as well as overall concerns about the lug design not being strong enough to endure the .308's power, while it worked for 5.56 caliber guns.

I would choose the M1-A, but as makers like Springfield Armory are now using cast parts, I've read about plenty of people having early failures.

I think a DSA FAL would be the best choice on the consumer market now, as many HK's come from shady sources these days as well.

You sound like you dont know squat about the AR10.

The AR design is inherantly accurate all by itself. Go to a Highpower match. The majority are/have switched over to AR's. The first AR invented was a .308 (AR180), It was changed to .556 to allow Soldiers to carry more ammo.

As far as the FAL's I don't know, But I will add I've never seen anyone with one at a rifle match.

Psst, Coz, that would be the AR10.

Posted: 3/26/2006 6:11:20 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:

You need to go back and read. The concerns on the lug on a .308 were about the Bushmaster using FAL mags.

The lug problem is exactly what I was talking about. You're very lucky to have 4 AR-10's, if in name only and not the real design from over 40 years ago.

I'm eager to see you and Shivan post some belt fed AR-10 pics from your personal collection.

Posted: 3/26/2006 6:11:55 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
Quoted:
BTW, Remington makes an autoloader .308 -- should we call it an AR-10 too? Or maybe we should call all PTR-91's -- HK91's? How hard is it to refer to the different makers by their chosen nomenclature?

By your harsh definition then, there are no AR-10's on the civilian market. Unless you have an original model made by the original Armalite company many years ago.

No, that would not be true. The current ArmaLite owns the trademark and they DO make the current AR10.

Posted: 3/26/2006 6:13:31 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

In the long run I think it will be more durable as it was designed for that caliber.

BWAAAHAAHAAHAHAAAA!!!!

Ya miss my thinking. The original design [yes, wrong matls] was problematic and did cause some injuries. [blown BBLS] Hell, some of the new ones were less then reliable and bolts broke because FAL mags were used.

It was DESIGNED as a ,308 but perfected in 5.56.

But the neither the original AR10 nor the current AR10 use FAL mags.

Posted: 3/26/2006 6:15:46 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Quoted:

You need to go back and read. The concerns on the lug on a .308 were about the Bushmaster using FAL mags.

The lug problem is exactly what I was talking about. You're very lucky to have 4 AR-10's, if in name only and not the real design from over 40 years ago.

I'm eager to see you and Shivan post some belt fed AR-10 pics from your personal collection.

The lug problem was on OTHER .308 ARs, not on the AR10. They are not in name only, they ARE AR10s.

Posted: 3/26/2006 6:16:01 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:

No, that would not be true. The current ArmaLite owns the trademark and they DO make the current AR10.

So lets' see some beltfed pictures.

Posted: 3/26/2006 6:16:56 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
The lug problem is exactly what I was talking about. You're very lucky to have 4 AR-10's, if in name only and not the real design from over 40 years ago.

I'm eager to see you and Shivan post some belt fed AR-10 pics from your personal collection.

Somehow I knew I was wasting my time on the ignorant.

Posted: 3/26/2006 6:18:29 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
So lets' see some beltfed pictures.

I don't own a GE Minigun either.

Still doesn't change the fact that you are WAY off base in most of your statements.

Posted: 3/26/2006 6:18:30 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
Quoted:

No, that would not be true. The current ArmaLite owns the trademark and they DO make the current AR10.

So lets' see some beltfed pictures.

Mine aren't beltfed, but they ARE AR10s.

Posted: 3/26/2006 6:18:47 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
Quoted:
The lug problem is exactly what I was talking about. You're very lucky to have 4 AR-10's, if in name only and not the real design from over 40 years ago.

I'm eager to see you and Shivan post some belt fed AR-10 pics from your personal collection.

Somehow I knew I was wasting my time on the ignorant.

I'm just calling you out, if you don't have some beltfed pics, then I guess you don't have a real AR-10, just one of the many variants you described earlier, only with the legal AR-10 name stamped on it.

Posted: 3/26/2006 6:20:26 PM EDT

[#23]

So how is the parts supply on the AR10 design? Reasonable?

Damn, I sure stuck my foot in that one didn't I? DOH!

AR10 never did take the place of the m14 tho, did it?

Posted: 3/26/2006 6:21:48 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The lug problem is exactly what I was talking about. You're very lucky to have 4 AR-10's, if in name only and not the real design from over 40 years ago.

I'm eager to see you and Shivan post some belt fed AR-10 pics from your personal collection.

Somehow I knew I was wasting my time on the ignorant.

I'm just calling you out, if you don't have some beltfed pics, then I guess you don't have a real AR-10, just one of the many variants you described earlier, only with the legal AR-10 name stamped on it.

What, because YOU say so???????

Posted: 3/26/2006 6:23:06 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
So how is the parts supply on the AR10 design? Reasonable?

Damn, I sure stuck my foot in that one didn't I? DOH!

AR10 never did take the place of the m14 tho, did it?

No, because they went with the smaller caliber.

Posted: 3/26/2006 6:23:28 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
I'm just calling you out, if you don't have some beltfed pics, then I guess you don't have a real AR-10, just one of the many variants you described earlier, only with the legal AR-10 name stamped on it.

Beltfed? You mean one of many design uppers that showed potential for Stoner's weapon platform?

I own a COLT M16A1, though I don't have every possible upper created for it. I suppose by this idiotic line of reasoning I don't really own a COLT M16A1?

Posted: 3/26/2006 6:25:13 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
AR10 never did take the place of the m14 tho, did it?

No, but the AR-15 did. The military had motivation to get away from full-auto 7.62N small arms. Some of it misguided, some not.

Controllability being one of the biggest motivators.

Posted: 3/26/2006 6:26:34 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:

What, because YOU say so???????

Just show me some beltfed pics, and I'll believe you.

Posted: 3/26/2006 6:27:15 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
Just show me some beltfed pics, and I'll believe you.

Grow up.

Posted: 3/26/2006 6:33:23 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
Quoted:

What, because YOU say so???????

Just show me some beltfed pics, and I'll believe you.

I don't care if you believe me. I do find you a very effective comedy relief though.

Posted: 3/26/2006 6:37:47 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Just show me some beltfed pics, and I'll believe you.

Grow up.

Pot-Kettle, sir.

Posted: 3/26/2006 6:42:36 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
...while there were alot of simularitys, there was also some noticeable differences for one namely that the origional AR-10 could be magazine or BELT-FED

That was a special upper. The standard upper was magazine fed. You can see the standard configuration on the Sudanese and Dutch AR-10's that were produced.

Posted: 3/26/2006 6:50:15 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just show me some beltfed pics, and I'll believe you.

Grow up.

Pot-Kettle, sir.

I've provided factual posts to counter the extreme ignorance shown in some of the posts in this thread.

Maybe you'd be better served in reading the factual posts and adjusting your future postings so they are remotely accurate in regards to the AR-10.

Posted: 3/26/2006 6:51:55 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
Quoted:
...while there were alot of simularitys, there was also some noticeable differences for one namely that the origional AR-10 could be magazine or BELT-FED

That was a special upper. The standard upper was magazine fed. You can see the standard configuration on the Sudanese and Dutch AR-10's that were produced.

I have the tape of the video they are talking about. Yes, it's a special upper. Go to this URL to see the standard AR10 from that era:

world.guns.ru/assault/as16-e.htm

So, one guy posts that it's belt fed and another guy runs with that without bothering to check things. Oh well, what do you expect?

.

Posted: 3/26/2006 6:54:59 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
So, one guy posts that it's belt fed and another guy runs with that without bothering to check things. Oh well, what do you expect?

From general discussion? Not much.

I wasn't disappointed.

Posted: 3/26/2006 6:55:09 PM EDT

[#36]

My choice would be the M1A. This is because I own/have owned the others mentioned, and the others have all had quirky little problems that made them unreliable in my experience. As a sidenote........some people posting in this thread would be better off keeping their thoughts to themselves rather than over defending their choices.

Posted: 3/26/2006 6:58:06 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just show me some beltfed pics, and I'll believe you.

Grow up.

Pot-Kettle, sir.

I've provided factual posts to counter the extreme ignorance shown in some of the posts in this thread.

Maybe you'd be better served in reading the factual posts and adjusting your future postings so they are remotely accurate in regards to the AR-10.

It's your insulting tone that's kept me going in this thread well beyond my original post.

Posted: 3/26/2006 7:00:26 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
....some people posting in this thread would be better off keeping their thoughts to themselves rather than over defending their choices.

It's one thing to defend a choice. It's entirely different to clarify bullshit. I'm just trying to get the bullshit cleared up. Unfortunately, there is quite a bit of misinformation in the thread that needed addressing.

I don't care what someone chooses to buy. It's your money, buy what makes you happy.

I bought what makes me happy.

Oh, BTW my answer to his question about which one for SHTF:

FAL.

The adjustable gas system makes it a little more versatile for misc. ammo you might find if you were rummaging around.

Posted: 3/26/2006 7:03:49 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
It's your insulting tone that's kept me going in this thread well beyond my original post.

Correcting your incorrect statements? Sorry.

Get a thicker skin, or more accurate information, or just know what the heck you are talking about. You choose.

You can't post ignorantly and then have a thin skin about it.

Posted: 3/26/2006 7:06:00 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
Quoted:
It's your insulting tone that's kept me going in this thread well beyond my original post.

Correcting your incorrect statements? Sorry.

Get a thicker skin, or more accurate information, or just know what the heck you are talking about. You choose.

You can't post ignorantly and then have a thin skin about it.

We have differing opinions. It's just the internet.

Posted: 3/26/2006 7:06:31 PM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:
My choice would be the M1A. This is because I own/have owned the others mentioned, and the others have all had quirky little problems that made them unreliable in my experience. As a sidenote........some people posting in this thread would be better off keeping their thoughts to themselves rather than over defending their choices.

And some people would be better off not telling other people what to post.

How many AR10s have you owned?

Posted: 3/26/2006 7:08:01 PM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just show me some beltfed pics, and I'll believe you.

Grow up.

Pot-Kettle, sir.

I've provided factual posts to counter the extreme ignorance shown in some of the posts in this thread.

Maybe you'd be better served in reading the factual posts and adjusting your future postings so they are remotely accurate in regards to the AR-10.

It's your insulting tone that's kept me going in this thread well beyond my original post.

His insulting tone? Sheesh. If you would post about something you actually knew something about, maybe you would not get that "tone".

Posted: 3/26/2006 7:09:39 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's your insulting tone that's kept me going in this thread well beyond my original post.

Correcting your incorrect statements? Sorry.

Get a thicker skin, or more accurate information, or just know what the heck you are talking about. You choose.

You can't post ignorantly and then have a thin skin about it.

We have differing opinions. It's just the internet.

Opinions are one thing, you posted bullshit as being factual. Different matter.

Posted: 3/26/2006 7:11:02 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:
We have differing opinions. It's just the internet.

On what? Who sells AR-10's?

You can opine all you like. Opinions on that matter don't change the facts.

Sorry.

Posted: 3/26/2006 7:11:32 PM EDT

[#45]

as my 308 purchase will be my first, and also my last

that's what you say now ....

Posted: 3/26/2006 7:15:38 PM EDT

[#46]

I guess I hit a nerve there. BTW. I have owned 2 AR10's. This was during the ban and mags were too damned hard to get. I had problems with the mags that I did manage to get. Not to get you AR10 guys all ruffled, but your rifles would be single shot semi-autos if it weren't for those converted M14 mags.

Posted: 3/26/2006 7:19:33 PM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:
I guess I hit a nerve there. BTW. I have owned 2 AR10's. This was during the ban and mags were too damned hard to get. I had problems with the mags that I did manage to get. Not to get you AR10 guys all ruffled, but your rifles would be single shot semi-autos if it weren't for those converted M14 mags.

Well, duh. The converted M14 mags were the only way to get more than 10 rounds. Of course, we could have used the 10 round mags that came with them. They weren't converted M14 mags.

You probably got aftermarket converted mags. I had problems with 2 20 round mags from the factory and they replaced them.

Posted: 3/26/2006 7:26:19 PM EDT

[#48]

With all respect. I am a dealer. They were not aftermarket mags. According to Armalite reps at that time they were even using GI mags for their 10 round mags. Dude........go grind your friggin axe somewhere else. Enough is enough!

Posted: 3/26/2006 7:32:46 PM EDT

[#49]

Depends what kind of shit hits the fan. If zombie type you might want the m14 if human type the AR10 would be better.

Posted: 3/26/2006 7:37:24 PM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:
With all respect. I am a dealer. They were not aftermarket mags. According to Armalite reps at that time they were even using GI mags for their 10 round mags. Dude........go grind your friggin axe somewhere else. Enough is enough!

Dude, the 10 round mags were not conversions. You need to stop telling people what they can and cannot post.

Sounds like you are the one grinding an axe.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - SHTF 308NATO.... AR10 or M1A???? (Page 2 of 3)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us