Armory Sponsor
Posted: 9/20/2006 5:13:36 PM EDT
|
I am looking for a good .308 battle rifle, something compact and light when compared to a HK91. |
|
If you're looking for compactness you're choosing the wrong caliber, as most .308 battle rifles are pretty good sized weapons. I'd be looking at a Para FAL first and foremost (getting ready to be poor if you want a nice one). Also take a look at the 16" carbine FALs which, although not folders, tend to be pretty small and well balanced as .308s go. Next I'd look at an M1A Scout or Socom, and finally I'd look into AR-10s. Keep in mind that you're losing a bit of velocity as the barrel gets shorter, and for this reason I'm not a huge fan of 16" barreled .308s. I'm sure the velocity loss is somewhat minimal, but if it were me I wouldn't go below 18". That said, it will likely never matter anyway (I think there's a pretty low chance that I'll ever be using my rifle on anything but paper). Out of curiousity, what is driving you to need it to be compact? What do you plan on using it for? If you need a really small weapon, a .308 may not be the right choice. |
|
M14 (M1A) Scout Handy, reasonably light, good ergo's, amazing sights and they just work. Para FAL would be 2nd choice. the M1A SOCOM & SOCOMII are fooking heavy as hell and poorly balanced. (2 worse than 1), but a regular M1A isn't bad AR10 is ummm, not as good. But no .308 MBR is going to be light. |
|
Figure I'd go ahead and give a more detailed list of how I arrived at my AR10 conclusion: Your options are pretty much the AR10 Carbine, the M14/M1A short variants, and the Para-FAL. Let's look at those (short & sweet version). Para-FAL - Pros: Very Reliable Cheap Magazines Cons: Optics mounting options not that great Poor iron sights FAL folding stock a nose-breaker for lefty shooters M1A/M14 - Pros: Reliable (when built right) Oustanding iron sights Cons: Some manufacturers use inferior components or have QC issues Expensive magazines Quality optic mounts are expensive Limited folding/collapsible stock options AR10 - Pros: Reliable Good iron sights AND optic mounting options Good % parts interchange with AR15 Cons: Expensive magazines Some users have experienced feeding issues I found the AR10 Carbine (post-ban light barrel) to have the best handling characteristics of any of the above mentioned. Mine did have an extraction issue that was frustrating at first, but Armalite promtply repaired. It is now hands down the most reliable rifle I own. It shoots anything I feed it, including cruddy mil-surp. The handling, solid optics platform, and the reliability have made this rifle my only choice for a compact .308 As for the 16" barrel .308 - I did the numbers on it a while back, and 147gr to 155gr .308s launched from a 16" barrel tend to follow the same trajectory as a 168gr from a 20" barrel - which happens to be the trajectory the ACOG TA11E BDC is calibrated for (from a flat-top AR mount, no less).  Unfortunately that data is in the archive now, but I'll link to it if any team members need it.
|
I've got a few issues with the FAL myself, (having had a couple of them), but optics mounting options aren't one of them. There are several good, solid and reasonably priced mounts made for FAL's. ARMS, DSA and even Tapco all make decent mounts. |
|
I think the poster's point was that the optics on a FAL mount too high and you lose your nice check weld. It was a pretty fair post too. I think that there is one other point about the AR. M14/M1A, MBR of the US army and a couple smaller players FAL MBR of like 93 countries AR10, MBR of no country ever. This may or may not be an issue, but there are definately standards for military use that may or may not get met by other rifles. The AR is by far the most ergonomic platform of the 3. |
I always just used a "chin weld" when shooting a scoped FAL, but I never really faulted it for that since that's a very common problem with military style rifles. If it is a problem you can always do the same as militaries around the world and tape a homemade cheekpiece to the stock. And actually, I'd give the FAL very high marks for ergonomics. About the only thing I can fault it for ergonomically is having a magazine that you have to rock back into place and I think it's charging handle is much better than the one on the AR. My own problems with the FAL were that it was about as big as a house, nearly as heavy and only delivered mediocre accuracy. I probably would have been very happy with a good DSA para, but I wasn't prepared to spend $1500+ on one. |
I haven't fired one... but I have a VERY hard time believing a saiga is more accurate than an m14. Where are you getting this info? |
 MY DSA FAL can shoot 1"-1.5" groups if I do my part (which I rarely do). M-14s are extremely accurate, and the match versions even make nice competition rifles. So I just have a hard time believing that Saiga claim. Feel free to prove me wrong....
|
90% of Saigas will get ~1.5 MoA right out of the box. I can easily get 1.5 MoA with mine using SA surplus. 1 MoA consistently with Hornady TAP 155 gr. What percentage of FALs can do that? Maybe 40%? DSAs are on the upper end of FALs so maybe 60% of DSAs? The rest of them are averaging ~ 4 MoA. M14s are can be accurate but I wouldn't say 90% can do 1.5 MoA stock, especially if you include the hit or miss M1As. Yeah you can accurize some of them to be sub-MoA but that takes a bit of work. And, how much do they cost? |
I'm really not sure where you're getting these "facts" dude. |
So you think 90% of Century/CETME FALs can shoot 1.5 MoA? 
|
First of all, a FAL is not a CETME, or even similar. Totally different rifle, totally different design. I didn't say all FALs would shoot 1.5" groups, but I am saying that decent quality ones will do much better than 4 MoA. ETA: nice sig line-Collateral. |
My bad about the CETME, I meant Imbel. |
Armory Sponsor