Armory Sponsor
Posted: 12/14/2010 4:42:08 PM EDT
|
Here are the choices:
FAL M1a AR10 HK 91 HK G3 AK-47 The qualifications are: Durability Avaliability of spare parts Magazine availabilty and cost Upkeep cost (tools required to maintain) This will primarily be an iron sight weapon with the possiblity of adding an optic (ACOG) in the future. It's primary purpose will be short to medium range work (~300-400yds). Any first hand knowledge and experience with these rifles would be appreciated. Thanks. |
|
The FAL and G3 are the only battle rifles on the list. The rest are copies of battle rifles (HK91 & M1A), assault rifles (AK47) or ? (AR10). Not knocking copies, God knows, that's the only way we would see most of these at an affordable price. Fortunally, the 2 battle rifles, or their copies, meet the OP's qualifications in all respects. I trained on the M-14 and had a lot of respect for it's capabilities but I always felt that we held ourselves back 10 years by not adopting the FAL.
my .02 |
| It looks like the FAL and AR10 are in the lead. As far as cost of the rifle, replacement parts, availability and cost of magazines, and over all weight of the rifle, are these two about on par with each other? Loaded, am I looking at an 11-13lb rifle with both? Thanks. |
|
Quoted:
It looks like the FAL and AR10 are in the lead. As far as cost of the rifle, replacement parts, availability and cost of magazines, and over all weight of the rifle, are these two about on par with each other? Loaded, am I looking at an 11-13lb rifle with both? Thanks. The weight of either depends upon how you set them up. The AR-10 has the potential to be lighter than the FAL, but many people build extremely heavy versions of both for whatever reason. You could build an AR-10 with a small red dot or mini ACOG and easily keep it under 8 lbs. That would be much harder to do with the FAL. Parts are widely available for both. AR-10s use a lot of AR-15 components. FALs have plenty of surplus and new parts around. The surplus parts are better IMO. The AR-10 mags currently used by Armalite are $35 and are stronger and better designed than FAL mags, which are now approaching $20 on the surplus market for good ones. Another thing to consider is that re-barreling an FAL is more difficult than re-barreling an AR-10. An FAL barrel must be timed either by machining the barrel shoulder or with breaching washers, and it must be headspaced with a headspace gauge and a correctly sized locking shoulder. AR-15 and AR-10 barrels come pre-headspaced and simply wrench in. The AR-10 is a better rifle overall than the FAL. Both are very reliable when built correctly. Both are excellent rifles. |
|
Quoted:
How often would I need to change a barrel? I was under the assumption that I wouldn't need to do that until about 10K rounds. You could probably go a lot longer than that with a chrome bore. But you never know. What if you trashed your barrel with an obstruction? Better have a decent shop with the FAL. With the -10, all you need is a wrench and a vice. |
| Let me add also that this weapon will have to be something that my wife can handle. Looking at the top 2 (FAL and AR10) I'd like to add the AK to the list as my top three as of right now. Like I said earlier, I have 1000 rounds of 7.62 in my basement already. The plan is to sit down over Christmas break and make a pros and cons sheet for each rifle. After that, I'm going to try and get my hands on each to see which fits best. Thanks for all the replies so far, you guys have always been a huge help. |
|
Take a guess which one I voted for.
Here's a hint: Indonesian Confrontation Vietnam War Cambodian Civil War Six-Day War Portuguese Colonial War South African Border War Northern Ireland Troubles Rhodesian Bush War Falklands War Gulf War Balkan Wars Cenepa War Sierra Leone Civil War Yom Kippur War Rwandan Civil War |
|
The AK is in no way, shape, form, or function a battle rifle. Its an assault rifle class. It uses an intermediate round suitable for upwards of 300 meters. If you decide on an Ak for your needs, a 5.56 AR would be a better choice at these distances.
Add in the need for the wife to be able to shoulder it (no idea how strong, big, heavvy she is) and a" battle rifle" might be overkill. What's your budget? If you've got cash to burn you could look into stuff like the MWS or SCAR-H. Your best bet is a. 308 patterned AR. Parts are everywhere, upkeep and ergos are great. Easy to mount optics on. The M1a is going to suck to mount optics on. There's no real good way to do it. The FAL would be a good choice as well, just remember to keep inch and metric in mind when it comes to parts and mags. Its also reliable but heavy and not as accurate as others. The HKs are good choices, but if you reload they can be pretty brutal on the brass. G3 mags are or were running $1/ea recently, so they are pretty cheap. Look at the PTR-91s if you want an HK9X series without the name and collectors premium. Optic mouning also requires finding a good mount which can be difficult and expensive. |
| I see what you're saying, and may have inadvertently used the wrong words when describing what I was looking for. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a battle rifle is a service rifle that fires a full power round, like the .308. An assault rifle fires an intermediate sized round, like the 5.56 or 7.62X39, and generally works from 0-300m (or further with the 5.56). Maybe an assault rifle is more what I'm looking for. It's been awhile since our military was consistently engaging folks much past 300m, so maybe instead of the defined battle rifle; an assault rifle would be more appropriate. Maybe the AR15 or AK47 should be my top choices. And if that's the case, I'm leaning towards the AK. |
|
Quoted:
Take a guess which one I voted for. Here's a hint: Indonesian Confrontation Vietnam War Cambodian Civil War Six-Day War Portuguese Colonial War South African Border War Northern Ireland Troubles Rhodesian Bush War Falklands War Gulf War Balkan Wars Cenepa War Sierra Leone Civil War Yom Kippur War Rwandan Civil War Think he'll get the hint? Anyhoo, the FAL is certainly my first choice. Excellent reliability, more than acceptable accuracy, ergonomic design, adjustable gas system, brutally simple field-stripping and maintenance, cheap spare parts, decently-priced magazines, rugged sights, and so on. It's not a match rifle, nor was it meant to be so. |
|
Quoted:
I see what you're saying, and may have inadvertently used the wrong words when describing what I was looking for. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a battle rifle is a service rifle that fires a full power round, like the .308. An assault rifle fires an intermediate sized round, like the 5.56 or 7.62X39, and generally works from 0-300m (or further with the 5.56). Maybe an assault rifle is more what I'm looking for. It's been awhile since our military was consistently engaging folks much past 300m, so maybe instead of the defined battle rifle; an assault rifle would be more appropriate. Maybe the AR15 or AK47 should be my top choices. And if that's the case, I'm leaning towards the AK. There's nothing wrong with getting either a battle rifle or assault rifle type weapon. It really depends on your needs. A 5.56 AR is great in the 3-400m range and can be pushed out farther effectively with skill. What is the purpose? Are you punching paper, running and gunning, accuracy, varmint hunting? Really, if you don't have one, you need a 5.56 AR. It's the most versatile weapon system available. You would also need to only get another upper (slap it on your 7.62x39 lower), which would save you money. A 16" 5.56 DI AR carbine is fine. I know the .308 is "harder hitting", but unless you're shooting at something to kill it it's a non-issue. It will also be cheaper to shoot, easy to find, and it's incredibly versatile. If you want the .308 for the sake of .308 by all means go for it. But if you're looking for something you can afford to feed and the wife can carry, get a 5.56 AR. |
|
It's intertesting you bring up switching my 7.62 upper for a 5.56 upper. My long term goal is to consolidate to one or two different rounds at the most. If I went the 5.56 route on the C.A.R. it would pair nicely with the mini 14 my dad just gave me, and save me a lot of money. I'll think it over.
|
|
Quoted:
If you want accuracy and ease of optics mounting with good ergonomics, I wouldn't consider anything but an AR10. M1As are a pain to mount optics on. FALs aren't that accurate ( not like an AR10) HK91s are uncomfortable and a pain to mount optics on. This. I'm a huge HK fan but I'm at the point where I'm doing a lot more practical shooting. I sold my HK-91 because the recoil is a bitch and its hard to scope. I'm saving up for an SR-25 EMC but I'd say that any good AR-10 would be the best choice. |
|
I faced this same choice a few months ago when I decided it was time for a new .308.
I weighed all the factors (literally) and ended up ponying up for a SCAR17. Best firearms choice I've made in 30 years. I've owended a 91, a slew of FAL's, and three M1A's. The SCAR runs circles around them. Now, having said that, as it's not on your list, and currently loses major points for lack of spares availability (granted) and high price, I'm going to vote for the M1A. You state it's going to be largely an Iron Site weapon, there are NO iron sights better than the M1/M14 sights ANYWHERE. They are the standard by which all others should be judged. The FAL comes next, but it's iron sights are pathetic. It is also heavy, and doesn't group particularly well. Having said that it actually comes in a very close second due to price, parts availability, ergonomics, reliability, and the as yet unmentioned "Coolness Factor". It's a cool rifle. Almost sexy. But so is a deep walnut stocked M1A. Forget the "Tacticool" variants, and stay to USGI 1960 style WITH A BAYONET LUG, and there isn't anything else you need!!! :) Too much variety in the AR10 wannabe class to subjectively lump them all in one choice. HK91 is front heavy, kicks like a mule, hard to clean (relatively speaking...maybe my fingers are just to big), and just doesn't shine above the others in any particular way I can remember (sold mine). Though the whole HK family has wonderful ergonomics. I second the call for the M1 Garand to be on your list. It's cheap (compared to the others, GO CMP!) and just can't be beat for reliability, accuracy, and buttstrokeability. But loses out big time in magazine capacity. No biggie really, as these rifles are about deliverying accurate, ranged attack and not close in spray-n-pray. Garand clips are still only a buck a piece, and I get just as much range-oogling shooting my Garands as I do with the new SCAR. Interestingly. It beat the Nazi's and the Japs didn't it? AK is a hard to beat weapon, but as previously said, isn't a battle rifle. If you're going to lump it in here, you need to include the AR, and all the other lesser rifles. 
Get an M1A, or a FAL and you won't be disappointed by your original criteria, but I'd say the M1A edges the FAL out in my experience. ...But then I sold my M1A to finance the SCAR... |
Armory Sponsor