Armory Sponsor
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Which .308? (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 6/14/2008 4:30:11 PM EDT
|
So the sickness continues, and this time my blood is running yellow with .308. I want an autoloader and preferably one of the ones listed below. I also need some information on kits vs. buying a complete rifle. I've wanted an M14-style rifle for... hell, since i was just a teenager. They are beautiful and accurate and just plain wonderful rifles. But they're expensive - i'd be looking at $1200+ and thats for used. My next favorite is the CETME/G3 or whatever else the variants are called. I love the way these rifles look and feel. Im just a little lost in the pool of variants and brands and all that other stuff. I know the CETME is the "base" model, or the one all the other rifles were based off of. HK rifles are obviously very close in design to CETME and there are a bunch of models of those... then then a bunch of clones of each of those models... you get my point. So which one should i seriously consider buying. Price and reliability count (i dont want FTF in every mag) And the last one i was looking into was the FAL. To me its kinda like the ugly brother who always got more girls than the attractive G3. But hey its a great shooter and i actually like its good 'ol funcional utilitarian look. So thats what i've been looking into so far. The price has to be right - 600-700 would be about the top of my budget, although if i must i may buy some parts and build it slowly to compensate costs (ehem, M1A). It also has to shoot well, like i said before i dont want to be dealing with FTF issues all day long, I want something that will take a hard range day like a champ. Keep in mind i DO NOT mind used rifles - it could look like its been to hell and back 7 times and i'd still love it (as long as it still shot well!!) in fact i almost prefer a used look over a brand new 'must wear gloves at all times to avoid fingerprints' look. I started with milsurps so i like that 'this rifle has a history' look. I'm leaning towards the CETME. And what about parts kits? I see them for sale all over the place but dont really get the point. It seems like you buy the receiver, barrel, and rest in different places and assemble them at home (or at a good gunsmith :D). Is it cheaper this way? How is reliability with kits? I have not seen any guides for kit building and am afraid i wont know what parts are needed and what is compatible with each other etc. Thank you all for reading this long-winded post and any comments are appreciated!! |
Not important to me, at the moment. I collect brass but with the intention of scrapping it. And i have other high-power bolt-action rifles that im quite happy with (mosin nagant & SMLE No.1 Mk3) |
|
I have 3 M14/M1As. 2 LRBs and 1 SAI. I bought the M1A for 1.5K a couple of years ago. I love it. It does everything I need. the SAI gun should be all you need, if you are not going after insurgents in the arm pit of the world with out any spare parts. You won't save any money buy building the M1A in pieces even if you do it all used. the only thing i could say is, pay once, cringe once. Of course then you would need a mount (NO SAI 3rd gen!!!) and a scope. (Why are all the cool hobbies sooo expensive!) Adam |
|
"I've wanted an M14-style rifle for... hell, since i was just a teenager. They are beautiful and accurate and just plain wonderful rifles." You answered your own question. Get the rifle you've wanted for so long and go on from there. There are $1200 deals on M1A's in the M1A/M14 section of E&E all the time. 
|
|
I have a 300 Win Mag, SA M1A NM, DSA FAL, JLD HK91 clone and I bought them in that order. AR10's are also very nice I have at the RRA, Armalite and the POF. I think I'm going to wait on the SCAR-H for my next 30 cal. rifle. So for you I would say go for the M1A. It sounds like that is the one you really want. |
|
This topic has been beaten to death so many times so I'll just say... Get a PTR-91F, CDNN has them for $899 and they won't be cheaper for long. If you don't get one here's something you can jerk off to after they are all gone: http://ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=6&f=9&t=243173 |
AR10. Oh, I just say your $700 limit. Okay, find yourself a Polytech M14S: As I bought it for $700:  As it is now. I spent less than $100 to make it 922 compliant so I could put a bayo lug/flash suppressor on it:  100 yard 5 shot group and I such witk iron sights:  Don't listen to the "soft bolt" bullshit and the headspace nonsense. Most failed because someone checked the headspace with a .308 gauge and these are 7.62x51 NATO rifles. They must be checked with a NATO gauge. |
I think you can get kits with the serialized upper for that or a crappy Arsenal one. They aren't going to be DSA (unless you're using a DSA upper) and the barrels might be shot out, but it's still an FAL. Anyway, since the OP has always wanted an M1A, I'd suggest getting one. |
Savages! 
|
|
The best MBR for the money is the PTR91. CDNN was selling brand new PTR91's for 899.99 a piece. You should be able to get a nice PTR91 for 1k or under. An equivalent FAL will likely cost you considerably more. A DSA FAL would be an equivalent rifle, compared to the PTR91, however it will be more expensive. Figure around 1500.00 for a DSA FAL, +/-. There are other avenues, but its much more of a crap shoot. Some Century FAL's work really well, some are basket-cases. The same is true for "home built" guns...Some might be equivalent to a lower end DSA, but none will ever be better. DSA makes a better FAL than even FN...IMO, buying a non SA/Imbel or DSA is a little more risk than I am willing to under take. M1A's can be had for around 1k-1200.00 for a basic model, though you might find one for 800.00. If you like M1A's, you should really have one. I have a LRB "rack grade" M14 clone that I love. However, the M14/M1A is not on the same level as the G3 or FAL in terms of reliability/durability. The only people who refute this is M1A afficianados and they usually argue the following, "well, I have an M1A that works perfectly and the M14 is still being used by the .gov, so the M14 is the best". Neither argument holds any water... The M14 is being used by the DoD because its the only x51 MBR they have and to think that they are "widely used" is just plain wrong. The M16/M4 rule the roost...If we could get as many M110's and Mk11's as we require, the M14 would be back to Anniston most ricky-tick. In DMR guise, the DoD has attempted to replace/augment the M14 several times and has purchased DSA FAL's and HK MSG90's for the job. Other nations are re-learning the importance of a semi-auto x51 DMR or even MBR and are recalling thier FAL's and G3's. We are purchasing new x51 systems entirely, such as the SCAR and M110. That being said, the M14 is a reasonably reliable/dependible/accurate semi auto x51. They just aren't as reliable/durable as the FAL or G3. You also cannot have a true "milspec" M1A or M14. Whatever USGI M14 parts were out there have largely been reclaimed or have inflated in price. SA also uses investment casting to produce their receivers, actually...Ruger uses investment casting to make SA's M1A receivers. M14 receivers were not cast. People have reported SA receivers streching/failing, which isn't suprising as USGI forged receivers were succeptible to similar cracks/failure. Though an average civilian shooter probably wouldn't total an M1A, though little stuff might wear or break. In any event, a true-USGI M14 clone with USGI parts would be eiether impossible to obtain or prohibitively expensive. The next best thing would be an LRB or SE, both of which are still commercial guns...albeit better than SA. You can have a "milspec" G3 clone. I hate that term, but its accurate considering the scope of this reply. There aren't 100% commercial G3 clones, so you are going to be getting a mixture of US made parts and real-deal military components. There are plenty of kits/parts availible for the G3 that were made eiether by HK or under thier indirect supervision. Adding all HK operating parts to a G3 clone would be a few hundred dollars, but it could be easily done. For example, LMO was selling F/A HK carriers for 60.00. My point is, that its possible to get a G3 clone that has 80% HK or equivalent "milspec" parts. The same can't be said of M1A's... In terms of shear performance, the FAL and G3 are the best MBR's....only biased M14 fans will argue this. The M14 is a beautiful, great shooting rifle but it just isn't as reliable or durable as the FAL or G3. "Milspec" gets thrown around alot, but suffice to say SA M1A's aren't milspec. They aren't made by a military contractor nor have they ever been used by a military. PTR91's and DSA FAL's are made off of Portugese and Austiran*respectively* tooling. The same stuff that makes DSA's and PTR's once made real-deal military rifles. Both plants were supervised*indirectly* and set up under the guidance of FN and HK. The above cannot be said of the M1A. The PTR especially uses true "milspec" operating components. The PTR91 and DSA FAL are equal to or slightly superior than MBR's that were carried into battle by various governments. Both the FAL and G3 are still standard issue or limited standard by many countires. If you like M1A's, you should really buy one. It will probably never fail a casual shooter...If you can raise 1k or shop around, you should be able to have a SA standard no problem. Since you aren't taking it into battle, personal preference is more important. However, the PTR91 is more affordible*as are magazines and components* and the rifle will be more accurate/durable/reliable. The system is very simple, robust and reliable. For the money, the PTR91 is the clear winner. A DPMS AR10 would be worth considering as the price is similar*though likely slightly more expensive*. However, even the AR10 is lacking behind the PTR for everything other than the DMR role. |
|
Wow quite a heated topic here i see! Thanks for all the replies :) I think the solution is clear - buy both! I REALLY want a CETME for fun, but then again i want a serious M14 as a shooter as well (plus i need one of those sometime this year for a project im working on...) I guess it'll depend on what kind of deals i can stumble upon in the near future. If i find a $450 CETME i'll grab that, but then again if i find an $800 M1A i'll jump on that too! I'm keeping my eyes open on seller boards for the deals and when i get my next rifle i'll be sure to come back and show it off here :D |
|
go with the M1A, and just get a springfield off the start don't bother messing around with the norinco copy's or someone's bs re welded receiver then start searching for Gi mags (worth their weight in gold) then start searching for Gi parts you'll eventually end up with a decent stock pile of Gi parts, check out a match grade medium weight barrel, a gi issue fiber glass stock , a match op rod, then if you want to mount optics get the arms m14 scope mount ,out of all the m14/m1a scope mounts this one works the best, that or you can just drop it into a sage stock it works good with the medium weight barrel , the sage stock makes the rifle heavy but you can mount every and anything you want to the rails if you want to keep it light go with the Gi fiber glass stock |
| Go with the PTR...out of the box they are reliable, accurate..Put a scope on one and use some good ammo, and you've got a rifle capable of 1moa, If I were using it scoped, I would change the stock to one with a adjustable comb, This could be done by yourself with a flat screwdriver....A trigger job by Bill Springfield will run $50, and will make it easier to shoot. Ryno is right... PTR 91's are about as close to the real deal as you're going to get, and at CDNN's price you can't go wrong. And don't forget mags are dirt cheap I can buy 5 mags for the price of 1 M14 mag..and parts are also dirt cheap. Before the naysayers come along and tell you how bad the ergo's are, Bullshit! they're not THAT bad...Actually very easy to shoot yes some things you'll have to learn to adapt to like the saftey, and the cocking lever, stll, it's not that bad as some will make it sound, after all, how many countries used the G3??? 40?-50? besides the U.S. how many used the M14?? If it was a POS, it would have never gotten as far as it did... |
|
The PTR has a ridiculously heavy barrel, which is both too short (18") and too slow (1:12) to be anywhere nearly as versatile as an M14, which has a bazillion barrel weight/twist combinations available to choose from. Swap the PTR barrel with either a military profile hammer-forged barrel or a longer heavy barrel and then you would have something, but the half-assed DMR-ish bastardization they've been selling can't compete (which is why they've dropped the price $400 over the last year). Its too heavy to be a MBR and too restricted to be a DMR. The M14 type is better all-around, followed closely by the FAL. I do see a 20" fluted 1:12 barrel listed on the PTR site, so maybe you could get one with that barrel custom, but it will certainly cost more than the $899 CDNN is charging. I'd look at the Saiga 308 if an inexpensive .308 was what you are after. It's reliable, relatively accurate and has a built-in optics rail, plus it's lighter than any of the others, and a heck of a lot cheaper. |
|
To the OP I know you have your heart set on a M14 and you mention getting both( I assume a M14 and one of the other battle rifles you mentioned) If I might suggest why not do a good deed at the same time and buy a FAL from DSA just to aggrivate Jesse Jackson's hemroide.  Just a friendly suggestion.
|
I'd have to disagree...Too heavy? that's a matter opinion.. Too short? then why is everyone raving about short barreled M14 clones??? A bazillion barrel combinations? Come on, yeah there's a few, but so what,...you gonna change it out in the field?And how much do these diffrent barrel combinations add to the overall cost?? I'll bet a bunch, That argument really dose'nt mean much. 1:12 too slow..I don't have any problems hitting what I want..I've gotten some damn good groups using some Aussie surplus I had.. Can't compete? says who?? you? Because of the PTR, prices of real HK91's have dropped, Cheaper mags, cheaper(and available) parts, No cast receiver, op rod, trigger group, extractor,front and rear sights, gas cylinder,(and you call the PTR a bastardzation??) Compare the two out of the box, no scopes, open sights,(as they were ment to be used in the first place) and from a bench or offhand with the same ammo and I'd bet a stock PTR would shoot as well if not better than any stock m14 clone. and for alot less $$$. Saiga's I've never shot one, But I have to ask, where are you going to find parts, mags, etc, when they break/wear out? Call the factory in Russia?? I had a M14 clone...It was a money pit.. parts are way out of hand cost wise, and mine never shot as well as my PTR,out of the box.This after several hundred dollars spent trying to get this M14 clone to shoot on a level I wanted it to. I cut my losses,and I quit drinking the M14 cool-aid... There are rifles out there that will do everything a M14 clone will and you don't have to take out a second mortgage to own one. |
|
Once again, emotional attchment, and brand name rule over common sense.. Ryno is right,and the truth hurts.If the M14 is soooo much better, answer this...How many other countries besides the U.S. used the M14? 2? 3? how many used the g3? 40? 50? Which system is has more time in combat situations? Oh, that's right! it can't work, because it's made from sheet metal, and not castings! and ARcom said it could'nt! LOL! M14 clones are money pits..I'll put my money in something that works. |
|
M14/M1A afficianados argue on 90% sentiment and 10% fact. As a military type rifle, the PTR91 comes with a 1/12 inch barrel, optimized for 147grn FMJ's. USGI M14's*also military type rifles* came with 1/12 twist barrels also. Military guns are only required to fire a few types of ammo and 1/12 is adequate for M80 and other NATO FMJ ball. Being that the SA M1A is a commercial/civilian rifle, it can be had with 1/10 twist barrels. While its easier to re-barrel an M1A, you could easily select an Obermeyr or Lothar/Walther barrel of whatever twist for your G3 build. 1/12 is adequate for almost all commonly encountered .308/x51 NATO ammo with the exception of 170+grn loads. 1/12 will stabilize up to 168grn bullets, which are more than adequate for the operating envelope. You can find fault with JLD's "peremeter"*or whatever they call it" DMR type gun, however is a much better choice than the SA M1A. DMR M14's have been nothing but a headache for the DoD, which is why the M21 and M25 were both scrapped. M14 DMR's cannot be both accurate and reliable, its one or the other. The guns are also extremely difficult to support. Nearly 1,100 HK MSG90's were purchased by the DoD to act as interim semi-auto DMR's upon the M25's cancellation. The fact that both PSG1's and MSG90's were purchased by our armed forces and federal agencies when they were swimming in M14's says alot to the non-biased. And to be fair, the MSG90's were dropped as soon as the Mk11's became availible. Though some are still undoubtibly still around... The fact that the M14 is being used as a DMR in the GWOT is hardly a rebuttal. The only reason these are being used is because M110 orders haven't yet been filled. Pressing the M14 back into service, especially in the DMR role has been a huge fiasco. Its been a much bigger issue for us, than it was for the Germans who have been recalling G3's for the same duty. It took SA and Rock Island years/millions to develop the NM/M21 M14. HK simply had to add a scope*and occasionally a trigger pack* to equal or exceede the results. The M14 was initially rejected by the USMC in the late 50's early 60's because its accuracy was unsatisfactory. The M14 is hardly an intrinsicly accurate weapon. The M14 has never been satisfactory in US service and were it as good as the FAL or G3 it surely would have been adopted by a paying customer. However, even if someone wanted M14's they probably couldn't get them because there were so many issues during its inception that all the engineering/production capability was devoted to fixing problems. The M16's issues pale in comparision to the M14's. The difference is, the M14 go to teeth during peace time. The fact that its the shortest serving rifle in US history says something to. atleast to those who are unbias. While the tooling/machines to make USGI M14's are long gone, LRB and SE examples are the equivlanet or superior. If the military liked the M14, why not place a limtied contract with one of these firms as opposed to spending millions developing the SCAR-H? Even units that had access to M14's for general infantry use have purchased DSA OSW's and even HK417's as of late. The G3 doesn't need to have a forged receiver as it isn't stressed by the weapons operation, however the locking reccesses are. These are steel and are plenty strong... Given its design, the M14 requires a robust receiver as its placed under considerable stress. Its design is very much oldschool and requires a robust receiver instead of say an aluminum receiver and steel barrel extension ala AR15. USGI forged receivers were prone to cracks and failures. Investment casting is adequate for a civlian rifle, but given the design of the M14 and the nature of the process, its inferior to a forged unit. If forged USGI M14 receivers can fail under semi-auto fire, certainly Ruger made cast receivers can stretch/fail too. While the M1A is a reasonably reliable/accurate rifle, in terms of durability/reliablity it can't compare to the FAL or G3. The G3's operating system is well proven and continues to live on today. The G3, MG3, MP5, HK33 and others continue to serve in first world militaries. After WW2, the design was copied by Manhurin, Sig, American firms and others. Other than Ruger, who has copied the M14? The BM59 doesn't count, as it wasn't a copy and its arguably better for several reasons. Even countries that were gifted M14's dropped them ASAP. The IDF received a large quantity of M21's yet replaced them with thier own Galatz. Columbia received many M14's, yet adopted the Galil shortly there after. The M1A is also much more of a commercial rifle than the PTR91. How many USGI or "military" parts are used in the M1A? I rest my case...While reasonably accurate and reliable, it just isn't on the level of the FAL/G3/PTR91/DSA. I have an LRB that I absolutely love. That being said, it just isn't the infantry weapon that the FAL and G3 are. Nor or any of them the DMR that the AR10 is... In my experience, 1911 and M14 fans are incredibly bias. They refuse to accept that "The good old days" might not have been so great. Even Larry Vickers, the most qualified person to make such a statement, recently said a G21 or HK45 is a better military handgun than the 1911. Though there is probably some Arfcom numb-nuts who owns a Kimber who will try to argue with Larry Vickers. They shoot thier Kimber at the range while he went to Panama with Delta. Just as with the M14, there is always some M1A owner who can't seem to accept that there might be better guns. While better is subjective, I admit, you can offer mountains of evidence to argue the FAL/G3's superiority over the M14. The M14/M1A is essentially a x51 Mini 14. If you like M1A's you should absolutely buy one...just don't buy an Bush or SOCOM model. If the government couldn't get sub 22 inch barreld M14's to run reliably over several years development, but yet SA*a commercial entity* can? Even noted weapons designer Tim LaFrance coudln't do it without adopting an M60 type gas system for his M14k. I would reccomend a loaded standard, but this will probably be above your price range. IMO, if you want an M14 save your $$$ and buy an LRB or build an equivalent. You will be getting a much better, more authentic rifle. Not only is the G3 one of the best MBR's availible, the PTR91 is the best value on the market. For a .308 MBR, its the only way to go.... |
|
I'm not an M14 fanboy, I don't even own an M14 type anymore. That said, I've owned 5 M14 types from various manufacturers and was issued an M14, and none of them ever had a breakage, and the ones with cast receivers worked just fine. You claim a modern cast receiver M14 type is inferior to the FAL, but FN had been building the FAL on a cast receiver since '73. Regardless, the facts about what military fields what rifle are moot when we are talking about what is available to the average civilian shooter in the US. As ex-military, and trained professionally in the use of combat firearms I can tell you that the military (regardless of which you choose) does not issue a weapon that I would choose to carry into a combat zone. Now, as a civilian shooter, I want a semiauto rifle that does what I want it to do, which is generally get as much ammo on target at the maximum range in the least amount of time. In my case, I use an AR10 and a Para FAL. If I had to choose one rifle in 7.62 and my choices were CETME or an M14 type in the <$1K range (which is what the OP was asking) it would be a ChiCom M14. Note, I never wrote "M1A". Only ignorant and inexperienced shooters refer to M14 type rifles as "M1As", and/or assume a cast receiver. Generally I agree with everything that has been said regarding the G3 vs. the M1A (particularly the newer ones), but my beef isn't with the G3 (I've owned a bunch of those too), it's with the bastardization called the PTR. Yes, the G3 and M14 are 12 twist, however the PTR is an 18" HEAVY BARREL which will not maintain the velocity of standard match bullets nor stabilize low drag bullets required to shoot accurately at long ranges, and the M14 has several factory barrel options to suit the required task; even with the 12 twist barrel an M14 can stabilize longer bullets than the PTR due to its longer 22" barrel. So, since the PTR does not use a twist or length adequate for longer range shooting (which is why you'd want a 7.62x51 to begin with), then why use a heavy contour, adding to the weight of an already bloated rifle? Other issues I have with the PTR: why no paddle mag release? Why no protected bore? For guys hell-bent on military durability/reliability you sure overlook the major faux-pas with using an unprotected button-rifled target barrel in a so-called infantry weapon. DMR role aside, If it had a military contour, a chrome lined or nitrited or hammer forged or even stainless barrel, and a proper mag release (Like the Vector) it would be a much better rifle IMO, but even then I'd prefer the FAL to the G3 for its superior ergos, ease of maintenance, better balance, lighter weight and lighter recoil impulse. You can get a good FAL (and I disagree that DSA is the only source for a good FAL) for the same price as a PTR. I'd even take the Saiga over the PTR. It's an AK (RPK), reliability is better than any of these, G3 included, has a chrome lined hammer forged 16" or 20" barrel, optics rail, lighter weight, is reasonably accurate, and far cheaper so you can make it what you want (or buy a spare rifle LOL). And Lets face it, these rifles are all outdated and obsolete when it comes right down to it. If you really think you'll need a serious combat weapon in 7.62x51, pony up for a POF or Noveske or wait for the SCAR. |
|
I think the PTR/G-3 rifles are heavy, have terrible ergos, and very slow and clumsy magazine changes, and heavier recoil than other .308 MBRs. But they are very reliable and accurate. The FAL has excellent ergos and is equally reliable, but isn't quite as accurate (but not that far behind). TOut of the box, the M-14 is about as accurate as the FAL, but they can be accurized and the techniques are well established. The FAL may be able to be accurized just as well, but if they can the knowledge isn't as widespread. The ergos of the M-14 tie with the FAL. M-14s are very expensive with FALs and PTRs being close in price. The AR variants in .308 aren't as standardized as I'd like, but are probably the most accurate of the bunch. Reliability seems to vary greatly and the rifles and mags are expensive. It all depends on what you want to do with the gun. |
Ummmm. No. That line right there about sums up your entire post. Most of the parts breakage of the M14 were the result of full auto fire. The fact that the M14 was canned for the M16 is a testment to the fact that our military was hell bent on a full auto standard infantry weapon. The M14 would have been a great weapon for WW2, and even moreso, the Korean War. If a semi-auto only M14 had been available during those conflicts, soldiers would have been clamoring for them. The jungles of Vietnam were hardly the place for the M14 to shine. Military conflict changed. You could argue that the G3 is better than the M14 because it doesn't have the issues that come with automatic fire. But, if you're comparing PTR91 vs. M1A in semi-auto fire, you're crazy. |
|
If it is possible to shoot all three rifles, M1A, FAL, or HK variant. I would really suggest that you do that just to see which fits you best. I started out with a Springfield Armory M1A Standard. I had to send it back to Springfield twice, the second time they replaced the rifle. After I got it back I sold it and got a DSA STG58. The DSA was reliable and I never had any problems with it . I did not really care that much for the trigger and sights on the DSA. Now I have a PTR 91 which I like better than the FAL and the M1A. So far my PTR's have been completely reliable. The only thing that I have a problem with the PTR is the lack of a bolt hold back after the last round fired. I like the feel of the PTR better and to me the recoil is less than the M1A and about the same as the FAL. For the money I think the DSA STG58 or the PTR 91 is the best way to go if you are looking for a reliable battle rifle. I also think that the PTR 91 is the best buy of the HK variants. If you want somthing more accurate I would go with a bolt action. That will most likely be my next rifle purchase. Good luck on your purchase! |
The M1A is a trademark owned by SAI. There are plenty semiauto M14 type rifles that are not called "M1A", and there are plenty G3 type rifles that are not called "HK91" or "PTR". Therefore I refer to them by the military designation from which they were all derived. |
Ummm.Yes. Have you ever seen a Mini 14 or M1A? Did you ever stop to wonder why its called a Mini 14? While there are some differences, there are many similarities and both rifles suffer from similar limitations/issues. You sir, would have to be "crazy" to argue this point... Actually, the majority of USGI M14's were never fired on full-auto. Their selectors were locked in semi-auto only from the get-go. As far back as WW2, it was obvious the Garand type system was ill suited for full-auto work. This was only confirmed during the M14 program. In order to cure these issues the M14A1 and M15 were developed and almost as quickly dropped. Sure, these supposed "BAR replacements" broke parts, but these rifles were a drop in the bucket. The lions share of breakges/failures occured with rack-grade M14's. Actually, many broke during training with blanks. Some BFA kits were equiiped with a steel plate that affixed to the receiver to protect the shooter from the all too common catastrophic bolt failure. Several troops/testers were injured by this. M14's broke op-rods/bolts and cracked receivers with alarming regularity. Throughout the program, the op-rod and receiver were serious limitations, problems and challenges. FWIW, the BM59 didn't suffer from the receiver maladies of the M14 and it was used as a select-fire rifle. The M14 would have been okay in WW2, but hardly revolutionary. Rifles like the G43 and SVT were used during WW2 and they are both similar in scope to the M14. The only advantage the M14 would offer over the Garand is extended capacity. When you are shooting a Granad against a K98, you already have an edge in firepower and capacity. If used effectively, it would have been an advantage but hind sight is 20/20. Also consider independant English and German reports that both concluded that infantry soldiers didn't engage targets past 200 yards and most were around 100. And this was in the "open plains of Europe". By Korea, America estimated that its troops were engaging targets at a maximum of 150 yards, with most shots being taken at 100 yards or less. By Vietnam, engagment distances hand shrunk even further. The M14 and x51 NATO were obsolete the day they were issued to troops. The writing was on the wall but the US refused to read it while the Spanish, Russians and English were looking ahead, instead of behind. People seem to think that MBR's offer some type of range advantage and this is categorically false. Sure, the caliber is more suited for 500 yard work but the weapons and battlefield are incongruent. The reason troops engage at around 100 yards is thats usually the maximum range they can ID targets. Battles don't take place at high noon with clear weather and perfect visability every time. Also, not every soldier is a sniper and thus the closer the range the more likely the hit. Shooting with little to no chance of hitting only burns ammo and identifies your position. Also consider the dynamics of engaging a human adversary. Enemy soldiers aren't bound by any covenant to just stand up and present their entire torso as your target. They are running, moving, hiding or other wise obscure. While we all know the dimensions of the human torso, in combat, your actual target will be significantly less. MBR's shoot around 4 MOA +/- with military ammo. Thats at 100 yards...think about the MOA at 500 or even 300 yards. Now consider the dynamics of hitting a moving/obscured human target. Very difficult indeed. While the round is more effective at longer distances, the chance of you needing the extra range or being able to make hits at that distance are very, very slim. You mentioned that the G3 doesn't have the full-auto problems that the M14 does. That pretty much sums it up. Proof that the DoD missed the mark big time with the M14. I would agree that comparing a semi-auto PTR91 to an M1A is crazy as the latter is a way better civilian-range rifle. As a military rifle, the former and FAL are light years beyond the M14. The M14 and M1A are decent rifles, yet the fanboys refuse to accept the possibility that other choices might be better. No matter what evidence you offer, they come back with weak History Channel-conjecture like "M14's only break during F/A fire" or they offer some type of antecdotal option. Well, M14's were pretty much never fired on F/A and your opinion dosen't represnet or over-ride the facts. The M14 was behind the times before it was ever adopted, more so than other MBR's even. The program was plagued with failures and breakages up until the very end. It was the shortest serving rifle in US history. Don't you think there might be a reason for this? You haven't provided one verifiable/supported counter to any of my points. You offered History Channel BS and sentiment. Thats okay though, as there aren't facts to prove your point. The facts overwhelmingly prove the G3 and FAL are superior infantry weapons. |
| Got all three. M1A Bush Rifle, DSA SA58(FAL) Para, and a PTR (had an HK SR9). All are great rifles. All are reliable. The DSA took some breaking in, but is my favored MBR. It's not a "Match" gun, but it isn't supposed to be. Second would be the M1A Bush. It has never malfunctioned, and carries well. Not a match rifle either, but I wasn't looking for a match rifle. PTR/HK is third due to lousy ergos. It's solid, reliable as well though. Still have an HK43. I've always prefered the 5.56 HKs to the 7.62 HKs. You can be heavy or have bad ergos, but not both. The G3 has both. The 5.56 HKs , though still having bad ergos, are lighter to and more handy (smaller over all package). And FWIW, even real HKs don't have a "protected" bore, but I agree, the PTRs H-bar is annoying. |
Century/Imbel clones, yes. They're somewhat hit-and-miss, but a lot of the Imbels are reputed to be quite reliable. I have a Century that runs like a top. They're not DSAs, but aren't bad for the price. To the OP, if you want a M14/M1A style rifle and don't want to spend $1200+, Polytech and Norinco are the only game in town. I bought mine for $800, with (probably unnecessary) USGI parts installed. (bolt, barrel). You might have to look around for one, but the deals are out there. If you have one looked over, make sure you haveit done by a guy who knows the M14/M1A well. Its worth the extra time and effort to find a guy who won't give you bad information. The bolt issue, from everything I have read, was blown WAY out of proportion. Even if you do get unlucky and get one with a bad bolt, it can be fixed. Here's mine, she now sports a USGI stock, but I don't have a current picture.  |
I have one of each. (Century FAL, PTR, M14S). Really, that's too many 7.62 rifles at current ammo prices, but I can't bring myself to sell any of them. The FAL is a VERY nice weapon system. My brother had a DSA. You'll see few nicer rifles. I almost cried the day he got rid of it. I wasn't particularly looking for the M14S. I just ran across it at a gun show and the price was too good to pass on. Told myself I'd sell the FAL to partially compensate. That hasn't happened and likely won't. The tracks. Yeah, they can get annoying at times. I've often wondered how many 7.62 rounds it would take to split a rail. 
|
|
All true. That won't stop the anti Sig 556 crowd from slaming it for not having a CB! The harder, denser metal will slow down bore deterioration in general, both from errosion and corrosion. |
Yeah, the SIG 556 has a nitrited barrel; arguably the best bore protection out there. You can argue the SIGs aesthetics but you can't argue it's barrel quality. |
True dat. I believe the new POF .308s hae the same bore surface treatment. |
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Which .308? (Page 1 of 2)
Armory Sponsor