Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire FN/FAL vs HK-91 vs AR-10 or other recent Stoner pattern 308 rifles...

Splat, If those are all yours I'm gonna' be pizzed off at you for the rest of the day.

We really need a drool smilie for pics like that.

Why don't you post the groups you've shot with your 7.62X51 military rifles with 147 gr ball ammo?

Go to the range with your FN and your AR, and shoot 100 rds through each at various ranges and post your groups. If you have neither refile, refrain from conjecture.

What a load of crap, SM.
The main reason most of the world went 5.56, is because of weight.

Ill run my para any day against any 5.56.
I've taken many a 1st place in service rifle competitions.
Used to be when Id show up, Id here, Damn, there's splatt with that para.
Learn your weapon, and your formidable!
Ain't nuttin hard about maintaining a fal.

Go visit www.falfiles.com and learn something.

I will admit though, a fal is pretty hard to control on fa.

Btw, there are many fal's still in use today.

SE, yeah. But were mine. I sold them for a tidy profit.
458, my 24" stainless, fluted, lr-308, will eat a ragged hole, but only with finely constructed handloads.

We are talking battle rifles, proven ones.....

Grab 10 novice shooters and get them doing drills from the 7-200yd line. First have them use an AR. Then the FAL.

Compare times and scores. You won't have to be real good at math to figure out the winner.

I don't know why I'm bothering to type this because this entire thread is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt at gun trading, but I just thought I'd throw that out there in case anybody was curious.



Travis

I don't own any of the rifles but I have shot the M-14 and the M-16 in the service extensively. Groups were never shot only human silhouette pop-up targets and the guns did just fine.

The real problem with the M-14 was on full auto as the M-14 is a real bear to keep on target even using a burst which is what you are suppose to do. The other problem with M-14 was traveling in armored personal carriers and troop carrier planes. The rifle was too big and heavy.

The M-16 was suppose to solve that problem. However, in it's full rifle form it's still a heavy rifle and too big for armored carrier use. Hence, one of the reasons for a carbine size rifle. As to full auto, the M-16 was easier to handle especially if firing a burst than the M-14.

As to the FN/FAL I have not shot one as extensively as the M-14 and the M-16 but the one I did shoot I shot quite a bit was very accurate and certainly could hit human size silhouette targets at range. However, the FN/FAL suffers from the same problems as the M-14, cumbersome in armored personal carriers and on troop carrier planes plus full auto control.

However, The civilian is not likely to have concerns with full auto or trying to get into a armored personal carrier or getting on or jumping from a troop carrier plane. Most of these rifle will shoot far better than most of us will ever shoot anyway so that's not much of a concern either. As to groups, who cares. No one is going to be shooting for groups in defensive situation anyway.

The 5.56 does have the advantage over the 7.62 of lighter ammo but has one major other disadvantage. You cannot fire 5.56mm ammo in a .223 chamber but you can not shoot .223 ammo in a 5.56 chamber. With the 7.62mm you can swap 7.62 and .308 ammo. It has to do with chamber size, case thickness, and pressures. The gunsmiths will have to explain that technical stuff.

If I were choosing a military style weapon for defensive reasons such as defense in a riot I would choose a 7.62 caliber weapon as I most likely would be in a stationary position. However, what one chooses is up to the person doing the choosing.

My point was that the recoil from military ball in 7.62 and 5.56 is not that big a deal for the average person.

My weapons when I was in the service were the M-1 carbine, M-14, M-1 Garand, M-16A1 and A2, and the 1911. A couple of single shot bolt action military .22lr rifles were thrown in for good measure.

derby_didn't to the rescue.

Thanks for clearin' that up.




Travis

FAL's are the only pretty assault rifle



But I still have not bought one. If I could get one that I knew to be a good shooter at a reasonable price, I might jump.

the falfiles website ran a survey a couple years ago, and only about half of those who responded (who presumably were FAL aficionados) said their rifle would do better than 2.5 MOA.

That's probably true Tex but who cares. It's purpose is to kill people and the rifle does that in spades. Oh and to be reliable and tough.

That brings back memories! They were heavy and a little ungainly, but much rather have it than any platform in 5.56mm!

The 5.56 does have the advantage over the 7.62 of lighter ammo but has one major other disadvantage. You cannot fire 5.56mm ammo in a .223 chamber but you can not shoot .223 ammo in a 5.56 chamber. With the 7.62mm you can swap 7.62 and .308 ammo. It has to do with chamber size, case thickness, and pressures. The gunsmiths will have to explain that technical stuff.

I will disagree with you on that. the 5.56 and the .223 have a similar relationship to the .308 and the 7.62x51. many people have fired both of the rounds in the same rifle. However, it is generally as i understand it not advised to fire 5.56 military per say in a .223 chambered gun there are differences. I had a a m1a that i was told by two different gunsmiths it was not safe due to excessive headspace. they were using .308 guages to checkthis. Only problem was the gun was cut for 7.62x51 and they didn't know what they were talking about. The rifle was checked by a competent underline competent gunsmith against a new springfield m1a and it was identical.
Some of this is kind of interesting in that i have been reloading both .223 civilian brass and 5.56 for use in ar's for years without issues. those rifles as most ar's were cut for the 5.56 round so not a problem Now having said that, i have a ar in .223 that has never seen anything other than civilian brass.

You need the extra power of the 7.62 when you're in the habit of shooting things in the azz...

While Travis is correct re- this thread....

The recoil and shootability difference between 7.62 and 5.56 is HUGE. Those that state otherwise are showing a clear lack of knowledge. We have been at continuous war for 13 years. There are organizations within the DOD that have more gunfight and killing knowledge now than at any point in our history. We as an entire military, and most especially a few select organizations within, are better at killing the enemy than anyone in recorded history. The only group that maybe was better was the Mongals. I base that on pure overmatch capability.

Within that military there are select organizations that will per capita be in more gunfights and kill more bad guys before sunup than any that have come before. The knowledge is there. No one issues 7.62 battle rifles as a general thing. Everyone of them choose 5.56 M4 based weapons. Every choice is a trade off, and the 5.56 based M4 is the best tool available for the job.

While there are subtle changes in 5.56 vs .223 chambers I think the main reason why everyone warns against 5.56 in .223 is the fact that US Military 5.56 can have varying pressure.

5.56 has a velocity component and a pressure component. From time to time to get the velocity requirement they'll have to get a waiver from the government on pressure. This is often due to changes in powder or primers from lot to lot. I've seen where military 5.56 has been waivered all the way up to 75kpsi. So that's well above SAAMI pressure for .223 (which is either 55 or 60 kpsi, can't remember which). Not that 10-15kpsi is going to blow up a gun, but the safety margin is reduced a good deal and since you never know what someone is going to do with their gun, it's best to just recommend against it.

Gun guys have a hard time understanding why bigger isn�t always better. We�re shooters and we can all handle the .308�s just fine, but some kid who grew up in The Bronx may have never even seen a rifle in his life, let alone ever fire one. Ask any military DI they�ll tell you that there are a good number of recruits that are scared chitless of shooting. That�s why they first demonstrate by shooting the rifle off their nutz or nose, etc. Militaries go with the high velocity small bores because they�re easier to shoot, and a hit with a .223 will beat a miss with a .308 every day of the week.

But also consider that even the best of the best tend to stick with the 5.56 because it does the job and they can carry more than twice the ammunition. Ask anyone who�s ever been in a gun fight if they wish they had less ammo?

I personally think the US Military is quite competent to understand what their needs are.

He speaks the truth. All of these units he's referring too have SCAR-17's if they want them.

An M4 with green-tip has a lot of limitations, but we don't have to use M855, nor do we have to use a 14.5in barrel.

This is the 9mm/45 debate, except even more silly.

While there are subtle changes in 5.56 vs .223 chambers I think the main reason why everyone warns against 5.56 in .223 is the fact that US Military 5.56 can have varying pressure.
[/quote]

I know some folks who "inherited" a huge stash of SS109. It is so hot, if you shoot it in the summer, it'll regularly dump primers into the trigger group.

TAK/4321,

Why the new log-on/persona?

I'm unlikely to be attacked by 500 Kevlar-wearing zombies, requiring me to fire 500 .308 rounds without cleaning the rifle, so I think beauty is a perfectly valid criteria for purchase.

To actually run through the OP's list of rifles:

HK-91 - funky ergos, and a 16" barrel. I've owned a 16" .308 in the past, and I don't want another. So-so optics mounting ability

FAL - good battle rifle, interesting design, and still pretty good parts and magazine availability. Can be very accurate, if you get a good example, but they apparently aren't common. A genuine Belgian-made rifle is a decent investment. Optics can be addressed with accessories, but the gun is somewhat harder to clean.

AR-10 (and all variants) reliability can be very good to questionable. Non-standard variations mean you need more spare parts. Excellent ergos, and easy optics mounting. The designs are still evolving - witness new nitrided barrels out there, and other new models. Examples would be DPMS Gen II, which some people think is very significant, and the various piston guns. Armalite, for example, offers models that accept PMAGS or other versions that take their own proprietary magazine. Colt has a 7.62 that accepts any standard AR-15 upper.

I have two Armalite AR-10's. The only functioning problem they've ever had was extraction in the older rifle, which was easily cured by a new extractor spring & insert. And yes, I have plenty of mags for them, and spare parts, so I'm pretty well set. A number of the common accessories, like stocks and triggers, are the same as AR-15's.

The AR-10 actually dates to the 1950's; while it's not quite as standardized as the -15, it's really not hard to get the parts you need for any significant variant - and they have also seen significant development over the decades. This AR-10 is wearing a Magpul ACS stock, Timney trigger, Hogue grip, Armalite free float tube, and a Rainier Arms/Shilen Ultramatch 18" barrel. It's not light, but it's not much worse than a FAL.

Rick believes in "reincarnation". Sometimes a mans' gotta do what a man's gotta do.