This thread idea came from the excellent article and thread about a rifle which beforehand I knew little about i.e. the widely used FN/FAL 7.62x51 battle rifle.

I just asked this question in a PM to one of the posters in that thread, but thought it might be fun to ask the gallery here what, if anything, makes the FN/FAL a superior firearm to a good running CETME or HK/91 with the roller block delayed operating system?

One plus for the FN/FAL I can think of for those of us who reload is that perhaps the FN/FAL does not put deep creases in 308 brass? I don't know as I have never fired one. The brass from a CETME/HK is pretty badly creased where the chamber releief grooves impress thier shape into the cases upon firing. A non factor in a battle, but a small plus for reloaders.

Looking more for dependability and longevity differences.

Lets throw in the recently manufactured AR-10 and other late and modernized 308 based AR / Stoner pattern rifles.

Let the debates and fun begin!

What do you like about one of these over the other two and why would (or DID) you choose it over the others.

The FN FAL feels, when shouldered, somewhat in balance like a fine English Double shotgun, while the same cannot be said of the HK-91 pattern rifle. Both are equally rugged and reliable. One thing about the HK-91, though, is that it will damage brass pretty bad.

I have noticed this. I have only owned and shot the CETME whice is much like the HK offering. Brass comes out with lateral deep grooves from the relief grooves built into the chamber of the rifle.

FAL has less felt recoil than a G3/CETME. Have not tried a AR10, but would assume it to be less than either.

Ignoring the quirks of the Israeli & Indian FAL variants, the standardizations were A) Commonwealth Pattern vs.:

- B) all other types.

which had parts interchangeability issues that typically only varied in terms of:
1) open ear gas block + tall rear sight or closed ear gas block + short rear sight
2) fixed or para stock and the mods unique to each
3) the business end/muzzle attachments LH threads/RH thread/Lug

To the best of my knowledge, G3/CETME didn't have the variations within their production runs(G3's took G3 parts/ CETMES took their own parts)

AR-10s are similar to gas piston M16 variants in that nearly everyone producing them does their own thing so you lack focused development and parts commonality.

So, you actually mean the opposite of what you're saying?

No, not a recommendation, just sharing some details on each. Forgot to add that there were a load of non-Commonwealth/Indian/Israeli FALs made. The catch with any of them is that they are effectively a dwindling resource due to phase outs combined with the 2005 Bush ban on import barrels and receivers which also had a chilling effect on the availability of quality G3/CETME parts.

10 years ago(pre-2005 ban) I would have recommended going FAL(unless someone wanted match accuracy since a fair amount of that was already in place for the AR10 variants) due to the low cost of quality parts, ease of working on them, and technical information available to trouble shoot them. Now it isn't such a good deal considering what you are getting for the money.

Built this one from a kit I paid $99 for,..used a gear logo Imbel receiver I got for $190 and about $100 worth of U.S. made parts to keep it legal,..the good old days of kit building.

I'd love to see kits at that price one more time. And cases of Aussie ammo for about 100 bucks again would be OK too.

Now they are too expensive to only get 1.5-2.0 MOA out of.

I have wanted one for a long time and at the price Bristoe built his for would still be in the market but now they are $1K+

Mike

Helped my brother build one a few years ago and he documented it.

Rainy day fun,..

http://home.fuse.net/eCat/FAL/falintro.html

Given the choices listed, I'd rather have a M-14 or the civilian version, the M-1A

And y'all forgot to mention the FN SCAR 18. Got to shoot a full auto version a couple of times, and it was very cool!

AGREED! But whatever the price, I am now of the mindset that each responsable head of household accross this land should now be about procuring at least one example of a rifle party to this discussion with a laying away of considerable ammo to boot.

I am blessed to have a wife who is of the same mind, but who wishes for a lightweight AR type in 223 for easier handling and recoil etc upon her petite frame.

Cash flow being about nil these days, I am now of a mind to allow someone to trade me out of one of my high end Mauser or Pre Garcia action custom sporting rifles with dies and ammo etc for some battle built rifle gear and ammo. Long storage capability food as well.

This query or thread is more than just a fun internet debate for me, I am employing the collective knowledge of the many here who have gained far more experience than I ever can in these things so as to make the best possible selection(s)

Thanks to all who have chimed in so far.

At the moment, I am leaning heavily toward the FN/FAL type rifle with a carbonfiber lower, skinny barreled AR for my sweetheart. I am a little bit afraid of the 308 class Stoner/AR class rifles since they do not have any battle provenance as of yet and the parts, as has been pointed out here and in a couple of the rifle magazines I read, are not uniform and interchangeable to any great degree.

True. But you can install a port buffer, either an original H&K or an after-market buffer, and that will pretty much solve that problem.

I could dig on one of those, too! But I have heard and or read that they do not have the longevity of dirty conditions firing that the all black guns do. If this is a faulty conclusion, please say so as I much prefer the looks and Ergo's of an M1A.

I HAVE noticed, with the couple of M1A's I have owned and fired, that thier felt recoil and muzzle rise was pretty harsh compared to even just my CETME.

Does your experience counter to that?

How does a port buffer eliminate damage to the brass that is coming from the lateral grooves that are (neccesarily) milled into the chamber area of the CETME/HK delayed roller block system and design rifles?

I have a PTR 91 KF (an H&K clone made on original H&K tooling). Primary case damage is caused on ejection when the case strikes the ejection port. Well documented and well known. Plenty of discussions about this on the H&K forum. Before I installed an original H&K port buffer, I had dented brass, and the brass flew a country mile. After I installed the buffer ... No more dented brass, and the brass ejected in a nice neat pile a foot or two away. There has never been any brass damage from my rifle coming from the lateral grooves milled into the chamber.

I have the FN FAL (Belgium), L1 A1(Australian) and HK-91(German) and the HK is easily the more accurate of the three, generally averaging 3 MOA with surplus military. I would think this probably is due to the free floating barrel system with the HK and less motion of moving parts with the delayed roller block vs spring piston during cycling.
That being said the trigger on the HK is horrible as issued and needs attention from an after market supplier.
Also the safety and cocking lever are not in a great location on the HK. In general the balance, controls and issued trigger are better on the FN although the standard rifle tends to be on the long side. Both systems are heavy pigs to haul around but I assume that is due to to fact they were originally designed to fire FA with a full powered cartridge so more weight equals more controllability.

Reliability is excellent with both systems. Thousands of both types are still going strong in many rugged, remote areas of the 3rd world.
Sights are good with both systems with the nod going to the HK for the speed (with practice) that the open battle sight setting can be visually acquired at close range and in dim light IMHO. It also has a cool wire cutter groove at the muzzle that actually works.

First and foremost, avoid any centerfire polymer/carbon fiber upper/lower AR variants like the plague. The weight reduction isn't that much and the reported problems with them are rather frequent and broad.

The catch with the FAL you would likely be looking at is the US parts you will be buying aren't battle tested and aren't up the the QC level of the old imported stuff. Sounds screwed up considering what US manufacturing should be, but that is the sad fact of it. Same problem with G3 variants. Not saying you can't get something good, but it is something of a crap shoot.

One thing I forgot to mention is FAL ergonomics are quite a bit better than G3 types(unless you buy gloves via some horror show supply company) and the AR10 is better still. That, combined with the ever decreasing numbers of good FAL/Hk parts and the accuracy of most AR-10s would cause me to look very hard at them for a 7.62x51 self loader.

Yeah.

I mainly started playing with FAL's just because I enjoyed the challenge of building them and experimenting with the different configurations.

I'd really hate to have to wag one around every day, however.

If I felt the need to arm my wife with a combat rifle, I'd get her an M1 carbine and put together a 3 lb coffee can of 110 grain JSP ammo for it.

Well nobody mentioned it so I will. The FN/FAL has an adjustable gas cylinder that can be adjusted using the tip of a bullet to adjust the gas cylinder. This has two very important functions. 1) You can use different bullet weights and still get the bolt to operate by adjusting the gas cylinder. 2) The FN/FAL with the adjustable gas cylinder will keep shooting with fouling that will stop any other battle/assault rifle.

The adjustable gas cylinder was one of major selling points of the FN/FAL back in the day as few other battle/assault rifles had adjustable gas cylinders. Another selling point at the time was the fact the FN/FAL was suppose to go 60,000 rounds before failure. Few, if any, battle/assault rifles could do that.

But that was the military FN/FAL. The civilian FN/FAL might be a different kettle of fish.

You need to ask your self what your purpose is a military style battle/assault rifle.

For riot control, a military style rile might be appropriate to protect life, liberty, and property.

For every other SHTF scenario a bolt action rifle such as the Ruger Scout is probably the best.

As to how much ammo, a couple of hundred rounds is about all you'll need for survival. More is for practice only.

All battle/assault rifles with a adjustable gas cylinder will need cleaning fairly frequently.

However, gas impingement rifles need cleaning more frequently than the M-14/M1A1 or most any gas piston rifle. Many times the gas piston can be cleaned and put back and the dirty rifle will keep on going. You aren't going to do that with gas impingement systems.

If I felt the need for a battle rifle I'd go with a M-14/M1A1 rifle.

DITTOS.

A good choice for many, but Sherri has fired both the carbine and a couple of AR 15's and she liked the AR 15 better, firing it to good effecy. She ESPECIALLY Liked a Windham weaponries system with the carbofiber lower.

+1 I've shot the HK91 and FN/FAL versions and I liked the FN better but liked the M1a feel and shot it way better(or it's a more accurate rifle).

I would expect I'd do well with an AR10 but have not had a chance to try my hand with one. The SCAR felt clumsy to me though I really didn't have a chance to do enough with it to decide.

Go forth and conquer the world with the finest battle rifle ever made.

There are inch pattern and metric pattern FALs. Which one will take clips from either?

Looks and sounds to me like the FN/FAL is a great choice. I will keep my CETME clean and oiled up until I can get one and not feel too disadvantaged....

Thanks to all who opined!

Metric.

The FN and HK are battle proven, especially the HK. The AR-10, very much not so.

WRONG!!
The inch can accept either, as its mag lip is bigger and the small dimple of a metric can fit.
Not the other way around.

Ah. I knew it was one, and thought for sure it was the metric. I stand corrected.

The port buffer will prevent the one ding in the side of the case from hitting the ejection port on ejection. It will do nothing about the flutes and scoring of the brass from the fluted chamber.

But also know, as ugly as the brass is that comes out of an H&K, it is reloadable.

As far as reloadable, an FN will ding the crap out of case mouths, and reloading once-fired from an FN is a very hit-or-miss proposition.

My thinking on this as well. Added to this angst is the known issues early M-16's had when first battle tested. Maybe the AR-10's are just fine, but I plan to stick with something that has decades of hard use for provenence.

The PTR's chamber flutes are very minor compared to the flutes of an H&K or Sig, so your experience is not really relavent to an actual H&K rifle. The H&K's and Sig's will have very deep scoring of the brass where the PRT just leaves a little line.

I'm concerned about how shallow the chamber fluting is on the PTR's and what will happen when that chamber gets good and filthy (as roller locking weapons tend to get). Will it prevent tearing the head off a case when it's really filthy dirty?? I don't know, I have only put a grand total of around 100 rounds through a PTR.

If you think the M1A kicked, wait until you fire that ultra-light FN build you envisioned.

Frankly, if you're thinking about a 300 yard max, "wife capable", battle tested, ammo available, dead reliable/effective rifle, the AR-15 in 5.56 or an SKS in 7.62x39 is very, very hard to top.

Some thoughts on .308 battle rifles.


M1A/M14 � It�s generally a good weapon and the ones made by Springfield are very well tested and proven. Parts are expensive but they don�t break parts often. There are oodles of accessories and you can turn it into most anything you want. They are ammunition sensitive and really don�t appreciate commercial .308 but really needs to be fed 7.62 NATO ammunition. Understand the US was the only nation who bought the M14 (there were other countries who used them, but they were basically given away at cost to keep production lines running), and the rifle trials were basically rigged so the M14 would win against the FAL. Still, I consider the M1A/M14 to be an excellent rifle. Not my first choice, but I wouldn�t turn one down.
Triggers even on a rack grade rifle are pretty good. Field stripping is pretty easy once you get the hang of it, but it takes a while to get the hang of it. Sights � well, they�re probably the finest ever put on a military rifle.

CETME � First off, do some homework on the CETME, it�s NOT a .308. The CETME was created for the 7.62 CETME round which is externally identical to the .308/7.62 NATO but ballistically very different. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62%C3%9751mm_CETME
The CETME cartridge is a true assault rifle cartridge being of a medium power (113grains @ 2,600fps), whereas the 7.62 NATO is a true battle rifle cartridge (147gr @ 2,7000fps). While you can get away with shooting 7.62 NATO in a CETME it will decrease the life span of a CETME rifle; just know that.
CETME rifles available in the US are not really well made. The roller locking trunions are not very well made and most of the �lifespan adjustment� of the roller locks is pretty much gone at the time they were built. Use of .308 or 7.62 NATO ammo will just compound this issue. Consider the civilian CETME rifles to be essentially disposable once headspace issues arise, because you�re probably not going to be able to adjust headspace without a complete rebuild. Parts are not common but generally cheap when you do find them. Magazines are excellent, but again not real common; but cheap when you find them. Sights are poor, triggers are REALLY heavy but foolproof.

So that brings us to the cartridges:

7.62 NATO vs. .308 vs. 7.62 CETME �
7.62 CETME � Intermediate Assault Rifle cartridge, VERY different from 7.62 NATO. Not a common round, not something you come by very often.
7.62 NATO � Cases and especially case necks are much thicker/tougher than commercial .308 to accommodate roller locking rifles.
.308 Winchester � Thinner cases often higher pressures and often uses slower powders. No standard on pressure (as in minimum/maximum) and pressure curves or bullet weights. May work well in a very clean roller locking weapon but I wouldn�t

FN-FAL � In my opinion this is the finest battle rifle ever built. The adjustable gas system isn�t there for shooting commercial .308 (although it does help) but is there to accommodate 7.62 CETME ammunition if it was ever used on a battle field. Once you learn how to adjust the gas system on the FAL (again, takes a little practice but not difficult), it�s a fantastic system. Ergonomics are about the best of all 7.62 battle rifles with the exception of the AR-10�s. Balance is excellent, and they are very easy to maintain�in fact, if you lubricate the gun my bet is if the only dirt it ever gets is from ammunition, I�ll bet you never actually have to clean it. Accuracy is good but understand it�s a battle rifle not a target rifle (people think that anything over MOA is garbage, I say those people rarely shoot away from a bench). NATO nations have used it as a DMR for decades and with 4 MOA rifles they can hit anyone out to 600m all day long, so how much more do you need? Parts are readily available and generally pretty cheap. Magazines are excellent and not too expensive. Accessories are abundant.

G3/H&K 91/PTR � Based on the CETME the G3 rifles are made for a real 7.62 NATO. H&K or PTR rifles are correctly put together where headspace adjustment is concerned. My big concern with the PTR rifles is how shallow the flutes are in the chamber, they�re REALLY shallow to the point of being nearly non-existent. The whole reason the design has fluted chambers is because the action opens up when pressures are VERY high and the cartridge case still has a very good grip on the chamber walls, so without the flutes they just ripped the bottom of the case right off the cartridge leaving the rest in the chamber. So with such a shallow fluting in the PTR�s I�m concerned about the reliability in really nasty conditions. The G3 as odd of a mechanism as it is (only a German would think it�s a good idea) are actually very reliable rifles in all sorts of nasty environments. I just don�t have enough experience with the PTR�s to know if that reliability is still there with such miniscule flutes in the chamber.

Everyone loves the sights on the H&K�s, I think they suck mostly because of how difficult they are to adjust. The Germans didn�t allow their soldiers to adjust sights, that was done at the depot. Therefore it takes a special tool to adjust sights and I really don�t like that. But once adjusted they�re pretty good. The 100m �battle sight� is great for close range but it�s really not all that great all the way out to 100m; it�s basically a V notch. Ergonomics on the G3 are the least user friendly of the bunch (same goes for the CETME). The magazine release is poorly located, as is the operating rod. If you use the �slimline� forend then you need to wear gloves when shooting long strings of ammo. Let your hand slip back to the trunion area just once and you�ll never do that again. Best to buy the later style forend that has the clip for the H&k light bipod (slick setup); it covers the entire chamber/trunion area and will save you from 2nd & 3rd degree burns. The trigger mechanism is absolutely foolproof, but triggers are rally stiff. One of the H&K standards was a drop from 100 ft (don�t ask me why) with the rifle not going off, and I�m betting it won�t. A good gunsmith whom understand that trigger group can clean it up to be VERY good (the PSG-1 triggers are just re-worked standard trigger mechanisms). Accessories are harder to find and generally more expensive. The slick setup is the military scope on the claw mount. It is a 4x24 scope with a bullet drop compensator and made by either Schmidt & Bender, Hensoldt, or Zeiss (about 80% are Hensoldt) it�s very slick. Maintenance is very easy, just don�t lose the receiver pins when you disassemble in a mud puddle. The G3�s tend to be pretty darned accurate. They�re not exactly free floating but not far from it, so sub 2MOA rifles are not uncommon at all. The actual H&K 91�s sold in the �80�s will typically shoot 1.5 MOA with good ammo.

AR-10�s � The US has the M110 and it has completely replaced the M24 system (in the sense that they�re no longer buying M24�s, but many are still deployed), and the M110 is generally satisfactory. They are much less reliable than the M16/M4�s because they haven�t had the development that the M16. Understand there never was anything wrong with the design of the M16, all the issues were materials & manufacturing, or ammunition. Same with the AR-10�s/M110, they just need to figure out what works and what causes problems and they�re doing that as time goes by.

As for the civilian AR-10�s, my biggest concern is the parts issue; there is very little in the way of standards. Also there�s the issue of parts availability which is a mixed bag. Still, there are many AR-10�s out there that are doing pretty well but understand that doing well for a civilian vs. doing well for a military are two very different things. The AR-10�s are clearly the most accurate of the 7.62 NATO battle rifles, have the best ergonomics, and are the most easily accessorized. But they�re also the least proven, and the least understood of all the military rifles out there. So you�ll just have to learn your rifle well if you have one, and perhaps lay in some spare parts when you get a chance. Magazines are the big wild card, there are many different magazines out there, some good, some not so good.

Having used some of the first M-16s I'll comment.

We were told that the M-16 will never need cleaning and as such we were not even issued cleaning rods. Forget oil and cleaning liquid. The M-16 is a gas impingement system and we quickly learned that gas impingement systems get dirty real quick and need constant cleaning in a dirty environment.

The military finally saw the light and started issuing cleaning rods, oil, and cleaning liquid along with a comic book showing us dummies how to clean our rifles.

Then to solve jamming and tearing case heads off cartridges the military went to chrome lined barrels. Chrome lined barrels solved these problems and reduced fouling.

Finally, the military changed the 5.56 ammo from a high speed varmint round that was suppose to blow people to smithereens to the present day NATO round.

Well made M-16/AR type rifles of today do not suffer from these problems.

For those who want a AR-10 here's the web site:

http://www.armalite.com/default.aspx

Expect to put down some loot.

The newer PTR-91s have deeper flutes than previously. Also, they've improved the sights in that windage adjustment is now done without tools. Elevation can be adjusted with tools commonly available.

IIRC windage adjustment is adjustable but you need a large Phillips head screwdriver. There are aftermarket windage knobs but you still have to loosen up the top screw first. Elevation requires the sight adjustment tool, or a pair of very fine, long, needle nose pliers. If anything has changed from that, that's news to me.

You can put a H&K21 machinegun rear sight that is dial adjustable to something like 1200 meters.

Cool.

PS I meant PTR-91.

Yeah it's a monstrosity of a rear sight, but it's elevation adjustable just by turning a knob. Windage in the same was as the other sight. But it's freakin bomb-proof.

FYI - with a steel dust cover and optics, the FN is far better than 4MOA, even with mil-surplus ammo. Half that; and with really good ammo, maybe pushing MOA.

All that is just gilding a lily, though.

I had an STG-58 parts gun that was MOA. I sold it like an idiot instead of spending the money to convert it to a para and cutting the barrel. I bought a brand new DSA Para. It put three rounds of M118 match into eight inches, consistently.

The standard FAL's 14+ LOP is a deal breaker for me. The SCAR 17S is the most ergonomic battle rifle ever devised, and has good press from those who've used it in the Stan. The M110 has few friends.

I predict the Ruger 762 will become the "go-to" 308 gas gun in the future. AR 10's are fragile. I'll wager the Ruger's gas system will cure that, if they've got the carrier tilt issue controlled. This is just a hunch on my part. Time will tell.

You're right. The FN's reputation has suffered greatly due to rifles being built from surplus parts kits. I recall when the FN-LAR was being imported into the US by Steyr, and with Federal premium match ammo it would shoot right at MOA all day long. Then a friend of mine broght me a semi-auto Argentine FAL (they were imported for a short time, don't recall who the importer was though), and it shot sub MOA (just, around .90) with Federal match ammo.

Still, let's say they're 2.5 MOA rifles. If people ever got away from the bench, then they'd learn you can hit a bad guy a LOOONNNNGGG ways away with a 2.5 MOA rifle.

Hell, back in the '80's I made 500 yard shots on IPSC targets with my Chinese AK (open sights) shooting Chinese laquered steel core ammo (not exactly match ammo), and I guaran-freakin-tee you that rifle never shot 2.5 MOA on it's best day.

mmmmmm....
pre ban imports!!
Can anyone guess what they are?

Top rifle could be one of two rifles. Enterprise arms had a pre-ban L1A1 back in the '80's and that looks like L1A1 wood (although the wood looks new). Or it's an FN LAR as imported by Steyr dressed up to look like an L1A1, because the FN LAR came with the Brit style flash hider. If it's the latter then the wood isn't original to the gun.

The middle looks just like the Argie 50.00 that I was talking about, or it could be a Sprinfield SAR48 which is a Brazilian Imbel 50.00 FAL.

As for the 50.63 I'll have to guess...I don't recall anyone but FN offering a 50.63 before the AWB, but I don't think Steyr was the importer when it was offered(you're taxing my memory).

So how'd I do; was I even close?

top is a Poyer.

Cheater!!

One one correct geek.
Top: NIB L1A1A, Poyer.
Middle: Browning, Rogak 50:00
Bottom: Howco 50:63

I thought that I was the only one who remembered those. A local gunshop had a couple around 1983(?). It was right after the Falklands War and I wanted one bad. They were marked "Steyr Daimler Puch" and were "Match" marked. The dealer wanted $2000 back then.

Yes you're right, they were marked Match and they were going for big bucks. If you remember those, do you remember the Sig Stgw 57 semi auto's also imported by Steyr? I had one of those, coolest rifle I've ever owned. But I couldn't afford to shoot it, it was chambered in 7.5 Swiss and that was a RARE item in the '80's.

Wow......

Much nonsense written....





Safariman,

Buy two properly built and setup AR15's and forget the 308 battle rifle. 7.62 battle rifles of any flavor are harder to manage, harder to support, harder to keep running, harder to handle, harder to shoot, harder to hit with, and consequently harder to kill with.


There is a reason that those very few in the military with the funding, resources, skill level and latitude choose to use 5.56mm M4 derivatives.

While what you say is mostly true, there are times where a .308 battle rifle is the correct tool for the job. That's why most military's have them (or something similar). It's a special purpose weapon, not a general purpose weapon.

Such as barrier penetration and ordnance destruction.

What ordinance are you going to destroy with a 7.62?

A machine-gun, a vehicle, a small artillery piece or mortar, stacked artillery and/or mortar shells, etc..

That's crap. A gas powered battle rifle firing a 147 grain projectile in .308 which is standard is not going to recoil all that much. The reason for the 5.56 is full auto fire which civilians aren't going to have or need.

A AR type rifle in .308 isn't going to be any worse for recoil than any hunting rifle in .308.

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.

If I was a soldier in the field, I'd be downright upset over that. Primers (or anything else for that matter) in the trigger group can really mess with your mo-jo.

May you come back in your next life as a dung beetle.

True, but interesting, it won't hang up a box trigger like an AR Gold, we know that from experience. It'll lock a GI trigger up tighter than Dick's hatband.

I'm pretty sure that ammo was out-of-spec and sold as such.

I had a ho down on 2 street tell me the same thing. Y'all related?

how about a 6.8SPC?

I had a bit of time last year with an LWRC shortie. It kicked harder than my SCAR 17S. It was kickin' the little brown men we were training dead in the azz. Fed 110gr. Gold Dots. The 30rd Pmag magazines are long/heavy and even I had trouble doing a tac load with them. They also were not very reliable, but the LWRC 5.56 guns have a stellar reputation.

someone needs to sell me a FAL

Yeah, that's one scenario where the sealed trigger is actually more reliable. But fill it full of sand and the standard trigger soldiers on where the sealed units tend to clam up. Good observation.

Streed Cred.....Engaged

I had this happen! Some offbrand reloaded 300BO ammo made from lake city brass, once a primer gets under the trigger the thing wont work. First time I ever had it happen in my life. Took the rest of the boxes back to the gunstore and they took it back.