-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/Pioneer Valley Arms February Giveaway ***Smith & Wesson SD9VE 9MM***
Poll: which .308 semi-auto rifle?
- Thread starter PaulD
- Start date
calsdad
NES Member
If you could - please post the information. Open another thread if possible. I already have an M1A, and a DSA FAL. Overall I think I prefer the FAL to the
M1A, but I have read a number of articles on the PTR 91, and have thought about getting one of those too.
I would be curious to read your "report" and see what you think - plus I would like to see who the distrubutors are so I can actually hold one.
I voted the M1A/M14, which had been atop my wish list until recently. Now it's in my safe.
A big factor in my choice was the heritage of the rifle - I'm quite fond of my growing collection of US military arms, and the M14 is the highlight of the set.
A big factor in my choice was the heritage of the rifle - I'm quite fond of my growing collection of US military arms, and the M14 is the highlight of the set.
For someone in MA I would suggest a FAL or HK91 clone due to relatively lower cost and cost/availability of pre-ban mags.
If you find a well priced Century Arms HK91 or CETME clone be careful: there are lots of reliability problems with some of them (I picked up a HK91 clone for $600 that is more accurate than I am and has never failed to fire/feed, but that is the luck of the draw).
Don't forget a big expense with a 308 is ammo - as with any firearm you need to fire it a lot to get familiar with it, and the days of $30 battlepacks of good surplus ammo are long gone.
If you find a well priced Century Arms HK91 or CETME clone be careful: there are lots of reliability problems with some of them (I picked up a HK91 clone for $600 that is more accurate than I am and has never failed to fire/feed, but that is the luck of the draw).
Don't forget a big expense with a 308 is ammo - as with any firearm you need to fire it a lot to get familiar with it, and the days of $30 battlepacks of good surplus ammo are long gone.
Second the expensive ammo part. A friend just sent me a link to a place that sells 308 battlepacks for $200 each...! Yikes.
I'll do that for you a little later today.
Paul - I talked to God...He told me to tell you: "M1A"....![[dance]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/033.gif "Dance [dance]")
That's funny, he told me the same thing as well.
![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
Paul - I talked to God...He told me to tell you: "M1A"....
That may be, but until he finishes his communication...you know, the part where he tell me he left $2500 under a rock in my backyard, I'm not jumping in my car.
That may be, but until he finishes his communication...you know, the part where he tell me he left $2500 under a rock in my backyard, I'm not jumping in my car.
LOL...I'm one lottery win away from putting an envelope and an M1A under that rock...
![[grin]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/041.gif "Grin [grin]")
Thanks bro. Thing is, I don't doubt for a minute your serious.
RD
Oh, and Paul...I can safely say I never thought I'd see the Buddy Jesus here. Great reference btw.
RD
Oh, and Paul...I can safely say I never thought I'd see the Buddy Jesus here. Great reference btw.
LOL. I'd be happy if Jesus bequeathed upon me 2000 rounds of .308 ammo.
Jesus wasn't around but Buddha whispered to me: "tell him I said that life's path is best walked with a Scout at your side"....
I'll give you some fair comparisons to ponder. In NO particular order, so you know.
M1A/M14 clone. Accurate, dependable, good iron sights, decent sling attachment points. Long, mags are moderately expensive, scope mounts suck or are expensive. Price can vary from $800-$2000+, depended on which one and new or used. Avoid Norinco and Polytech, and Fed Ord over 8XXX serial number (under that is good). Best brand is LRB. Avoid the SOCOM, though I hear the Scout is OK (but not great). Best buy is a Fed Ord that hasn't been fired much.
FN/FAL. Reasonable accuracy, dependable, cheap mags, fair iron sights, OK sling mounts, can be had reasonably priced. Scope mounting sucks. Can be had for $500/600 to over $1000. Avoid Connan (DCI) and Hesse receivers (barrel index issues). Imbel receiver builds are great.
HK91/PTR91/CETME. Rugged, dependable, mags dirt cheap. Accuracy so-so, sights are a mixed bag, scope mounting can be a cruel joke. Can be had from $600 and up. Avoid some builds, anything with a Hesse receiver, and anything marked Century Arms. Make sure to check to see if the barrel is indexed properly. Avoid any CETME, as many are bad builds. Word has it the current PTR (from CT) rifles are decent.
AR-10. Accurate, easy to mount a scope on, good ergonomics. Unreliable, mags can be expensive, fussy about ammo, parts can get pricey. Can be had somewhere from near $1000 and up. AR-15 it isn't, especialy when it comes to reliability.
There's your info. My comments above are based on established knowledge and personal observations. I've yet to see an AR-10 complete a 2 day Appleseed. I've seen the rest used at an Appleseed, and outside of accuracy issues, they all worked.
I personally own an M14 clone (Fed Ord, s/n 41XX, USGI parts) and an FN/FAL (Century L1A1 on an Imbel receiver). Those would be my recommendations, and I'm not alone. Boston T. Party has a book out there called "Boston's Gun Bible". Get your hands on a copy and read it over. Depending on which edition you get, he recommeds the FAL or M1A, with the other as 2nd choice. There isn't enough quality/reliability difference overall between the 2 to amount to spit. Both shoot about anything you want to run through them, and are more than accurate enough.
If you're planning on using a scope, go with the M1A/M14 and buy a good mount. Springfield mounts aren't the way to go, Brookfield Machine mounts are. If you want good accuracy, make sure to use a "normal length" M1A, not a Scout or a SOCOM, and avoid the Troy MCS. That's based on what I've personally seen, not 2nd hand opinion.
If irons are your desire, and you want AR-10 style ergonomics, go with the FAL. Cheaper, more reliable and it works.
If you want a "sniper rifle" that you won't shoot much, and can live with lower reliability, go with the AR-10.
If you want "bullet proof" reliability, and can live with possible reduced accuracy, get an HK or HK clone, and check it out first. Again, word has it the current PTR's from CT are OK. Still check them for barrel indexing.
If money is an object, go with the FN/FAL and don't sweat the rest.
M1A/M14 clone. Accurate, dependable, good iron sights, decent sling attachment points. Long, mags are moderately expensive, scope mounts suck or are expensive. Price can vary from $800-$2000+, depended on which one and new or used. Avoid Norinco and Polytech, and Fed Ord over 8XXX serial number (under that is good). Best brand is LRB. Avoid the SOCOM, though I hear the Scout is OK (but not great). Best buy is a Fed Ord that hasn't been fired much.
FN/FAL. Reasonable accuracy, dependable, cheap mags, fair iron sights, OK sling mounts, can be had reasonably priced. Scope mounting sucks. Can be had for $500/600 to over $1000. Avoid Connan (DCI) and Hesse receivers (barrel index issues). Imbel receiver builds are great.
HK91/PTR91/CETME. Rugged, dependable, mags dirt cheap. Accuracy so-so, sights are a mixed bag, scope mounting can be a cruel joke. Can be had from $600 and up. Avoid some builds, anything with a Hesse receiver, and anything marked Century Arms. Make sure to check to see if the barrel is indexed properly. Avoid any CETME, as many are bad builds. Word has it the current PTR (from CT) rifles are decent.
AR-10. Accurate, easy to mount a scope on, good ergonomics. Unreliable, mags can be expensive, fussy about ammo, parts can get pricey. Can be had somewhere from near $1000 and up. AR-15 it isn't, especialy when it comes to reliability.
There's your info. My comments above are based on established knowledge and personal observations. I've yet to see an AR-10 complete a 2 day Appleseed. I've seen the rest used at an Appleseed, and outside of accuracy issues, they all worked.
I personally own an M14 clone (Fed Ord, s/n 41XX, USGI parts) and an FN/FAL (Century L1A1 on an Imbel receiver). Those would be my recommendations, and I'm not alone. Boston T. Party has a book out there called "Boston's Gun Bible". Get your hands on a copy and read it over. Depending on which edition you get, he recommeds the FAL or M1A, with the other as 2nd choice. There isn't enough quality/reliability difference overall between the 2 to amount to spit. Both shoot about anything you want to run through them, and are more than accurate enough.
If you're planning on using a scope, go with the M1A/M14 and buy a good mount. Springfield mounts aren't the way to go, Brookfield Machine mounts are. If you want good accuracy, make sure to use a "normal length" M1A, not a Scout or a SOCOM, and avoid the Troy MCS. That's based on what I've personally seen, not 2nd hand opinion.
If irons are your desire, and you want AR-10 style ergonomics, go with the FAL. Cheaper, more reliable and it works.
If you want a "sniper rifle" that you won't shoot much, and can live with lower reliability, go with the AR-10.
If you want "bullet proof" reliability, and can live with possible reduced accuracy, get an HK or HK clone, and check it out first. Again, word has it the current PTR's from CT are OK. Still check them for barrel indexing.
If money is an object, go with the FN/FAL and don't sweat the rest.
Last edited:
Excellent advice overall. I take exception, (also based on personal experience - not second hand opinion) with the quoted statement and am curious as to what you base this advice on.
With regards to the SOCOM-16 and/or Scout length rifles, of course one cannot hope to compete in 1,000 yard matches at Camp Perry - that is in no doubt. However, for those who want a handy, accurate and powerful rifle in a carbine length, there seems to be a popular gravitation toward these rifles. M1A/M14 purists tend to hate them - realists and many who buy them tend to love them for good reason. A proven design in a convenient package.
As to "avoiding the Troy MCS", I again am curious as to how you formulated your opinion, (which is indeed valued). Is it just personal preference, or can you point to a resource which would help me to understand what would for all intents and purposes, be a minority view? My experience and opinion with regards to the Troy MCS, (along with many others), is vastly different from your own. I found the Troy MCS to be one of the best additions to the M1A/M14 platform that has come down the pike in a long time. Accuracy improvements were immediate, optics mounting became sublime, recoil became more of a "push" than a recoil, follow-up shots became faster, muzzle climb all but evaporated. The real bonus was in the utility department. The Troy MCS can be fitted with anything that will mount on an AR-15/M-16 including grips, butt stocks, optics, BUIS, etc - making the M1A/M14 completely modular and adaptable to the environmental, tactical and ergonomic needs of the user. I think anyone who has fired my M1A SOCOM-16 in the Troy MCS will agree - it transformed the aged, but reliable rifle into a modular, modern rifle platform. Soldiers in the field, LEO's and folks like Charlie Cutshaw and Clint McKee seem to agree as well.
Like I said - your entitlement to your opinion is absolute in my eyes, I'm just curious as to how it was formed...
PS: Apologies Paul for the hijack...
Now, I had better go back and qualify that MCS statement. See, I may have it mixed up with some other drop-in set up. IIRC, it was a Troy.
The one I saw didn't work for beans, had a folding/collapsable stock, was highly inaccurate and didn't work all that well (had a SOCOM or a Scout in it). The owner still has it, but last I knew, was looking to buy a regular M1A to supplement it. Something about his friend on one side (regular M1A), and a 14 year old on the other side (Fed Ord M14 clone), on the firing line at Jericho last year, both shooting considerably better than he was. They were both using regular type rifles. The guy that owned the "tactical" setup said it wasn't all that steady, kind of wobbled some.
The SOCOM's tend to malf (the ones I've seen) and are noted for being inaccurate themselves (also the ones I've seen, and others I've heard of). I think the process of shortening the rifle wasn't as well thought out as it should be, and I'll wager the port size may be too large, causing excessive pounding of the working parts. The reasoning of why is speculation, of course, as I haven't measured port pressure.
Now, it may very well be that I saw (and heard about) a batch of bad ones, and you and others got good ones. There's plenty of evidence out there that Springfield Armory isn't always the quality they were just 10 years ago.
Now, the accuracy standard I'm applying is 4 MOA, something acheivable.
The one I saw didn't work for beans, had a folding/collapsable stock, was highly inaccurate and didn't work all that well (had a SOCOM or a Scout in it). The owner still has it, but last I knew, was looking to buy a regular M1A to supplement it. Something about his friend on one side (regular M1A), and a 14 year old on the other side (Fed Ord M14 clone), on the firing line at Jericho last year, both shooting considerably better than he was. They were both using regular type rifles. The guy that owned the "tactical" setup said it wasn't all that steady, kind of wobbled some.
The SOCOM's tend to malf (the ones I've seen) and are noted for being inaccurate themselves (also the ones I've seen, and others I've heard of). I think the process of shortening the rifle wasn't as well thought out as it should be, and I'll wager the port size may be too large, causing excessive pounding of the working parts. The reasoning of why is speculation, of course, as I haven't measured port pressure.
Now, it may very well be that I saw (and heard about) a batch of bad ones, and you and others got good ones. There's plenty of evidence out there that Springfield Armory isn't always the quality they were just 10 years ago.
Now, the accuracy standard I'm applying is 4 MOA, something acheivable.
NP. It's still relevant to the overall topic. Also, Nickle, thanks for the post. You definitely have some good points to ponder.
I had to go to Collector's at lunch to drop off my 22/45 to be sent back so I took a look at a basic Springfield M1A. I like the feel in a lot of ways but I have to admit, I was underwhelmed by the fit and finish. It's part of the charm in a way but it'd be nice if the finish quality were a bit more modern. Not a huge deal though.
I also looked at an FAL but it was old and battered.
Was it new? The only reason I'm asking, is that I looked at a new Scout at Pete's in Adams and the fit-n-finish was stellar...
It was used but it was in very good shape. It said Springfield on the receiver though I have no idea how old it really was. It had a walnut stock, the the brown plastic handguard on top. Everything felt like it worked well (action, rear sight adjustment, etc). It's probably me being a noob and expecting a level of finishing like I have on my handguns or a good hunting rifle.
Wood M14 handguards are rare, early and they quit using them for good reason. I tend to gravitate to the synthetic stock for mine, and I have a friend in NC that sells used stocks. Remember that these were military design rifles, the fit and finish isn't going to be great, but should be OK. Function and accuracy first.
The beat up FAL was probably good to pass on. They show up frequently enough to wait for a good one, if you go the FAL route.
The beat up FAL was probably good to pass on. They show up frequently enough to wait for a good one, if you go the FAL route.
Well I own a couple of FALs, an M1A and a CETME and have put a few rounds through AR-10s. First off, I'm not a fan of most AR-10s due to the reliability issues I've seen which match those others have mentioned above. I enjoy the CETME which is essentially an HK 91 but to be honest I don't shoot it much anymore. The ergonomics are bad, that cool looking charging handle is annoying to operate being so far forward. Otherwise it it totally reliable, but does chew up brass pretty good as others have mentioned. Being roller-locked, it gets filthy inside similar to an AR and I don't enjoy cleaning it.
My M1A was my highpower competition rifle, I've owned or been issued 3 of them over the years, 2 Springfields and a TRW. They are great rifles, accurate and fun to shoot, and reliable. The new ones are also overpriced in my opinion, and mags are way too expensive. They can be the most accurate of the bunch if you put the work into them, but that gets expensive and if you shoot a lot requires periodic reworking to maintain the bedding unless you go for another expensive chassis-type stock. Scope mounts on the regular models are also very expensive, at least for the ones that work. Cleaning and maintenance are pretty easy, but spare parts are pricey.
Last is the FAL. I have both the inch and metric versions. I prefer the inch for the slightly better ergonomics (wider safety lever and mag release), but you can get those as add-ons on the metric. Overall the ergonomics are far superior than the HK and I think a little better than the M1A, although it's close. The DSA scope mounts work well and are reasonably priced, I've used others and wouldn't recommend them. The rifle in general is not as accurate as the M1A, but I've seen some impressive groups with them, plenty good enough for anything you would want to do with it. Mags are still dirt cheap as are spare parts, and they are easy to work on.
I like all three but if I was just starting out and had to pick one, I would probably get the FAL as I feel it gives the most bang for the buck. Just my .02.
My M1A was my highpower competition rifle, I've owned or been issued 3 of them over the years, 2 Springfields and a TRW. They are great rifles, accurate and fun to shoot, and reliable. The new ones are also overpriced in my opinion, and mags are way too expensive. They can be the most accurate of the bunch if you put the work into them, but that gets expensive and if you shoot a lot requires periodic reworking to maintain the bedding unless you go for another expensive chassis-type stock. Scope mounts on the regular models are also very expensive, at least for the ones that work. Cleaning and maintenance are pretty easy, but spare parts are pricey.
Last is the FAL. I have both the inch and metric versions. I prefer the inch for the slightly better ergonomics (wider safety lever and mag release), but you can get those as add-ons on the metric. Overall the ergonomics are far superior than the HK and I think a little better than the M1A, although it's close. The DSA scope mounts work well and are reasonably priced, I've used others and wouldn't recommend them. The rifle in general is not as accurate as the M1A, but I've seen some impressive groups with them, plenty good enough for anything you would want to do with it. Mags are still dirt cheap as are spare parts, and they are easy to work on.
I like all three but if I was just starting out and had to pick one, I would probably get the FAL as I feel it gives the most bang for the buck. Just my .02.
