Best .308 Battle Rifle

Only the CETME model A had the non-standard 7.62x51 requirement. All of the ones for sale today should be the CETME model C that takes standard 7.62 NATO.

The G3, M14, FAL, and their semi-only counterparts would be fine choices.

The modularity of the G3 family is pretty appealing. You can reconfigure it with the push of a few pins. Real HK-91's have recently dropped somewhat in price and mags seem to be at an all time low. The chamber area gets absolutely filthy. Clones are often a hit or miss proposition.

FALs are great, in my opinion. They're simple to use and break down and very easy to clean what little gets dirty (gas block and piston mainly). Originals have remained fairly expensive, but good clones are reasonable and not difficult to find. Mags are dang inexpensive.

I don't have much experience with the M14 or its civillian counterparts. I know it's a modernized Garand, so I'd imagine it would be every bit as good as my 1944 WRA Garand. I do know that I need one to have another competitor from the 1958 trials.
 
Another advantage for the M1A's and Garands: Nice triggers.

The NM trigger in my M1A is as good as the competition trigger in my bolt gun (though 2-stage). This is a *big* plus in my book.

You should also go to www.fulton-armory.com and look at the results they're getting from M1A's (guaranteed minimum accuracy = 1 MOA). Not that this matters in a battle rifle, but it sure is nice.
 
FAL. I like the ergonomics of a pistol gripped stock.

I don't like the sights, but hey, why the heck would you put target sights (ala M14) on a battle rifle anyway? Something to get screwed up.

The FAL gas system is adjustable to allow the rifle to continue to fire as it gets dirtier. Pulling out the cleaning kit during a firefight probably isn't a good idea.

The gas system rides over the barrel, which allows the barrel to be lower, which sends recoil straight back into the shoulder and decreases muzzle rise and allows quicker followup shots. You can acually control a FAL on full auto because of this, not like with an M14.

I like that the charging handle is on the left so you dont have to change your strong hand grip and that it doesn't cycle with the action like the M14 (ever catch your finger on an M14 oprod? OUCH).
 
I was under the impression that the FAL lost against the G3 in a reliability competition to be the standard German service rifle. It is also misleading to say that HK had to go to the spainish for the CETME. Yes, the CETME predates the G3, but the CETME was designed by a bunch of ex-Mauser engineers that formed a company called H&K.
 
I was under the impression that the FAL lost against the G3 in a reliability competition to be the standard German service rifle. It is also misleading to say that HK had to go to the spainish for the CETME. Yes, the CETME predates the G3, but the CETME was designed by a bunch of ex-Mauser engineers that formed a company called H&K.
 
Gerg,
The G3 is a great gun but it never beat the FN FAL in a reliability competition that I have ever heard of. If you have a copy of this report please post it. Everything I have ever read picks the FAL hands down.
 
Here it is, from a guy that owns or has owned all of those in question:

Tie for first place: HK91 and FAL

Second: M1A/M14

Trailing in a VERY distant third: AR10

Reasons:
HK91 is the most robust AND accurate of the lot, but has funky ergonomics. Easy to accessorize, and great scope mounts available. Very accurate. Great magazine and parts availability.

FAL has the accuracy, balance and ergonomics, but lacks the ease of scope mounting and overall robustness of the HK91.
Personally, I prefer the FAL. Both HK91 and FAL have pretty crappy triggers, but can be tuned. The DSA scope mount is the only one to consider for the FAL. DSA FALs are excellent.
Great FAL magazine and parts availability.

The M1A types are very "rifleman friendly" and have superb triggers, but have a crappy safety and mounting a scope is out of the question. They are rather dirt sensitive compared to the FAl and HK91.
ALL of the M1A scope mounting systems suck. I have considered designing a new type, but I am not excited enough about the weapon to spend the time at present.

AR10s have an AR type gas system, that SUCKS. BUT they can use slightly modified M1A mags and parts are reasonably available. If you LOVE ARs, this is the gun for you...

The VEPRs and GALIL .308 rifles are nice, but hard/impossible to get 20 round mags for. The Gailil is no longer imported, so parts are an issue. However, the Galil is a truly superb, durable battle rifle.
 
Gregg, my understanding is that Germany bought FALs, as the G1, but couldn't get a license to manufacture from FN (something about an occupation...), so they developed their own.
 
My understanding mirrors MAD DOG.

Personally, I hate the ergonomics on the HK. I am having a friend build a G1/FAL for me.

"FAL's forever!"
 
Mad Dog,

Can you offer a little more information on the mounts for the M1A's? I received the following from Fulton Armory re: their ARMS-18 mounts. Would you agree with their assessment?

The ARMS mount need not be removed to use iron sights, so the question really relates to the scope rings you choose. The ARMS QD rings are as close to absolute repeatability as I'm aware you can get. When I visited Dick Snow in August 2000 he provided me with US Army test results that indicated that Army snipers were very satisfied with the return-to-zero of the ARMS rings.
Click to expand...
 
Guys,

I read this in Duncan Long's book on HK rifles. I do know, however, that Long's books have more than their fair share of errors--that is why I was a little tentative in my response. I am actually in the process of buying a ARS FN FAL right now, so I obviously like the FAL. Still, if a quality HK was avalible in the $1200 range I would have to give it strong consideration.

GHB
 
Basically, you got:

CETME - Good basic design. Some of the US rebuilds were done by drunk blind monkeys. You might have to send back, or do a little bit of work. Basically a Spanish G3. Accurate design, but its not M1A class accuracy. I found it more accurate than a DSA Fal (good manuf.) but YMMV. Mags are dirt cheap, $10 but . Expect to pay $500 for a G3 + 10 mags. Financiall, the best deal here.

G3 - Better fit 'n finish than a CETME, maybe a little more accurate because of it. Getting rarer. If you're going kit built, about $1000 street including 10 mags.

HK91 - Great Quality US Made G3 derivative. Many interchangeable parts with G3, but not all, Can be made VERY accurate, see PSG/1. Rifle is very pricey, but you can use G3/CETME mags if you select and tune them well. HK91 mags themselves are also dropping in price, but not near $10 yet.

FAL - Original belgian FALs are in the $2000 range and getting to be more collectors items these days. Expect to pay $4k+ for a paratrooper folder. Mags are nice and cheap tho, $10. IMHO, this cannot really be made into a very accurate gun because if its inherent design flaws. Front sight is on forward part of gun, rear sight is on lower receiver. Expect some pain trying to install a scope. Adjustable gas tube system has people who love it and hate it. Postbans can be home-brewed with a good workshop for $700ish. Quality name brand DSA is about $1500 for the gun.

M1A - Can be extremely accurate and durable, is long and heavy, and pricey solution. Expect to put out $1500 for an unscoped rifle and 10 mags. I shot one, but it never appealed to me.

AR10 - Pricey Gun, Pricey Mags, SUPERB ergonomics, Flakey reliability reports. Stick to .223 versions for AR stuff, where they excel. Conversions to use M1A mags only bring mag prices down to that range, which still isn't so hot.

Galil - $$$, but has really good rep.

At least, those are my OPINIONS!

I'm in the middle of selling my not-even-completed FAL kit and getting a CETME after trying both friend's at the range.

Note: ph33r the M1A people. If you thought the AR15 and AK zealots were bad, you ain't seen nothing yet.
 
dzeanah,

Like I said in my last post,
"ALL of the M1A scope mounting systems suck."
That is a pretty flat statement, but it entirely suffices.
The Army is too easy to please, and they are not the ones I would look to for results on any accuray related issues, especially return to zero.

The bottom line is this: Unless you braze the mount onto the receiver of the M1A, it will shift around. The bolt on, cantilevered side saddle mounts extant are simply NOT the way to go.
Did I mention that they SUCK?

If you want to scope a .308 semi auto battle rifle, go with a FAL or an HK91. BTW: I just bought some excellent HK91/G3 mags for $14.00 each, used but LIKE NEW. FAL mags average about the same price each in the same condition
Suitable scope mounting systems exist for both of these.

If you do not NEED semi auto capability (and what real rifleman truly does?) then get a decent bolt gun.
They are lighter, faster handling, less maintenance intensive and less expensive to get situated with. I love them first and foremost. I get a major woody when I am shooting my bolt guns, but the same thrill is simply not there with the sheetmetal wunderwaffens, even my favorites in that category.

For that reason, I do not offer any semi auto rifle work here at MD Labs.
All of the rifles we build are controlled feed bolt guns:
Dakota 76
Winchester model 70 pre 64 and model 70 Classic
Springfield 1903/ 1903A3
P17/Remington Model 30 (but rarely)
Mauser types including CZ 550 and 602
 
Had they attached the scout mount in a genuinely permanent manner,(for example: soldered to the barel or integral with the barrel) it might have been adequate, but merely adequate.
The "scout" type M1A left me unimpressed, but then, I am not exactly a raging fan of the forward mounted scope concept to begin with.

Understand that I feel that the M1A is a truly excellent weapon, and it is especially so when used with iron sights as intended.

There is nothing wrong with iron sights on a battle rifle. They are fast and can be terribly accurate. Practice is the key to success.

I once watched a Navy dentist shoot a 3/8" group with a box stock, two groove M1 Garand at 100 yards.
That is accuracy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top