Which .308 Battle Rifle?

I will repeat, If HKs and FALs are so accurate, why have I never seen one put it on the line when the rubber meets the road?
Click to expand...

If your asking why they arn't in service rifle competitions like the M1A and AR15, thats easy...they were never US service rifles.

I've never seen an HK-91 group anywhere close to MOA.
Click to expand...

And I've never seen a sub-MOA FAL. I've seen LOTS of MOA HK91s, though. As a matter of fact, most every HK91 I've ever seen shoot was a MOA gun.

While I don't know the "spec" for the PSG1, I sure dont think it's 1.5 MOA. Theres a factory-stock PSG1 at my local gunshop that will make a 20 shot group I could cover with the palm of my hand at 600yards. My palm is about 5" across.

[Edited by BB on 06-08-2001 at 04:39 PM]
 
Pampers:

Simple, that's because NRA/CMP service rifle requires either an M1 Garand, M1A, or AR15. FAL and HK91 don't qualify. Anyone shooting a FAL or HK91 would be in the match rifle category, competing against custom bolt guns. And it's awfully hard to compete against a custom bolt gun...

M1911
 
Service Rifles

Yes, I know what the rules of Service Rifle competation are. But there's no rule against using HKs or FALs in High Power competition. I have seen them on the line, but their owners usually gave up, realizing that their sights were useless, or that they weren't accurate enough to cut the mustard. Why drop the cash for one, if it isn't competetive?

I'm sorry, I've seen AR15s that would go 1/4 MOA and M14s that would do 1/2 MOA. That's the accuracy potential of the rifle. If the others won't do it, then they arn't accurate!


Yr. Obt. Svnt.
 
I was ascking about battle rifles...

BATTLE RIFLES, folks, battle rifles. Not target rifles. You think if you're in the fox hole you're going to give a crap if your shot group at 100 yards is 1" or 1.5" or 2"? Come on. All a combat rifle needs to do is be able to hit an object the size of a man's torso up to the effective range of the cartridge it fires. Combat, in the field, is rarely done off the bench or through a scope, and you're not going to have time in the middle of a firefight to screw with the windage adjustment every time the breeze changes. If I want super accuracy, I'll get a bolt gun, or a single shot...

Why drop the cash if it isn't competitive? Well, I, for one, don't compete. I shoot for fun, not to prove anything to anybody. I honestly don't care about sub-MOA accuracy in a service rifle, as it's unnecessary and, usually, accurizing a rifle like that makes it less reliable in dirt, mud, etc, because the tolerances have to be tightened.
 
Based on your last post above, I'd say you ought to get the FAL. It is accurate enough for the "foxhole" situation as well as out to several hundred yards versus man-sized targets. Parts (including magazines) are more widely available, and are much less expensive than those for the M1A or HK 91.

It appears to me that you've narrowed it down for yourself! :D
 
Another reason the AR15 and M14 are "so" accurate relative to the HK91 and FAL is because there has been 20+ years of development to make them so. It takes a while to get these things "sorted."

That said, my worst "kit" FAL shoots 1.5 MOA. Best "kit" shoots around 1 MOA.

-z
 
match v. rack grade

I haven't noticed that much difference between my rack grade M1A and my match M1A in terms of reliability. The bedded stock, smaller and angled front sight, larger inner diameter flash hider, NM rear sight don't affect reliablity. The unitized gas system hasn't degraded reliability yet. The tighter match chamber has chambered plenty of mil-suplus ammo and I have had only one failure. That one failure was a failure to extract a wet match-grade round in the middle of a rain shower while shooting 600 yd prone slow fire. The heavier match barrels do affect balance, but that is a different issue.

While you may not care to adjust windage while sitting in a foxhole, it's still nice to have the ability.

My suggestion... try them out, buy the one which one fits you best.
 
I've had them all. They are all excellent. They all vary a bit, especially regarding accuracy.

The key is SHOOTABILITY in YOUR hands. The gun that "feels" best in your arms is the gun you'll carry and shoot. Bet on it. This is why different folks love different rifles. Don't try to convince someone that what's right for you is perfect for them too. Humans aren't robots.

People love to show off their stuff. Let them show you their guns (use their ammo- ha, ha). Shoot them all, carry them all a mile or 2, clean them all. Them shoot it again. Go through the entire bunch. At the end there will be no doubt which is for you.

For me, although I love the AR-15 in 223, the FAL was love at first shot. Although I shoot left-handed and I have short arms, it fits ME perfectly. I shoot well with it too. I think there is a relationship between comfort and accuracy if the guns are equally good. I've sold my HK-91 and my M1A's are for sale, and I won't be buying an AR-10.

Find the most SHOOTABLE rifle for YOU. No matter how many you own, that is the one you'll shoot. And since you'll shoot it a lot, when the SHTF, it's the one you'll grab first.
 
Nightcrawler.
I will cast another vote for the SA M1A be it Standard or Loaded. I just picked up mine and it is very easy to field strip, quality, fit and finish are all great.
As for Mags just watch the for sale boards at http://www.assaultweb.new and http://www.ar15.com You can get deals on both AR15 and M14/M1A USGI mags if you just watch. I haven't been burned yet and have bought over 35 mags and an ATN 5x33L scope and Arms mounts at some very good prices.

Now as a disclaimer, I know nothing about FAL's or the HK91. I could restate what I have read but I wont because I don't know. CETME I was told to stay way away from by enough people that I took there word.
I guess you can get a FAL for around $800-900 and mags ar cheaper by a long shot.
But I can tell you a place that has the Armscorp M21 (M1A) for $995 and you only need 3 or 4 20 round USGI mags anyway.


Just an opinion

Karsten
 
RobCon beat me to it with the Beretta BM59. I don't think that has been imported for 30 years though has it?

Oh and that CETME from Spain with its bipod it sure looked cool. LOL

the HK91 just ruined the brass
 
I think that as appealing as the AR-10 is, (and believe me, it's appealing!) it has some huge drawbacks...specific parts, available from Armalite only, and expensive mags. (You shudder at the thought of $50 for a M14 mag? Try adding $25 onto that to convert your M14 mag to an AR-10 mag! Whew!) BTW, M14 mags aren't $50 anyway, they're $32 from Cole's. M1A's are everything they're touted as. Reference http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=69270 I think that it's a great rifle and all, but for REALLY good shooting, it takes a lot of pampering. That's why I stopped trying to use mine for HP. Pampers talked about the USMC marksmanship team...those guys have a support team you wouldn't believe. The Army does too. I'm not saying anything bad about Pampers in the least...he'll tell you the same thing. Those riflesmiths they have tune the rifles with such a vast amount of parts, they get every rifle shooting great. You and I don't have that kind of budget.

If you want excellent accuracy out of a .308, get the AR-10T and weep when you buy mags.

If you can accept a little less accuracy, but more reliability, get the M1A or an custom built FAL.

If you can accept maybe a little less accuracy still, perhaps a kit gun FAL or G3 is for you...however, forget reloading if you go the HK route!
 
I would go for the FAL as a battle rifle. Christopher II has already pretty much said why I would choose it. As far as a TARGET rifle, that's another thread entirely...

Dan
 
I vote for the FAL. It is the only gun that has been able to come close to the BAR. A trigger tune and a scope they will out shoot a M-14. I like the M-14 type but they dont shoot that well and are hard to keep on target at rapid fire. Put the FAL on target and just pump rounds with the crosshairs on target. You need to go to the M-21 with a M-14E3 type brake to get a M-14 hit a target at 300yds as fast as you can pull the trigger. Plus the FAL does not need a fancy leather cheek pad so you can use the scope. Upps excuse me while I unlace my cheek pad so I can see the sights with the scope off. The last M1A I out shot was with a 39 buck Cugir .22 training rifle at 200 yds.
 
My experience is limited to the FAL and the HK 91. Except for mags (curiously), the FAL is an expensive proposition (I have a Belgian model). The HK is a sound weapon, and seems to have more accessories readily available for it (except the mags!). Either one has combat accuracy more than acceptable for your purposes.

The late Mel Tappan thought highly of the Beretta BM 59/62; they are as rare as hens' teeth. Someday I'd like to add one to my battery, but the same goes for an M14.

None of the weapons discussed in this thread are "bad"; go with your budget and what feels good, and I don't think you'll go wrong.
 
Second choice would be the M-60??? Why choose what will likely become a 23 pound manually operated repeater? Over the long haul a 30-30 Winchester would be a better choice. I for one was ecstatic when I heard the M-60 was to be replaced by the M-240G. Still makes me happy to think about it.
 
Re: FN FAL

The FAL is a fine battle rifle, but an accuracy wonder it ain't. The receiver of the FAL is too long and too lightweight for the kind of match accuracy you can get out of an M-14/M1A. That's why the FAL was never really successful as a sniper/spotter rifle with any service. If you're not looking for National Match type accuracy, the FAL is a superb choice.

The G3 is an outstanding design, but the action is never truly locked, and the roller-delayed blowback has such high initial bolt speeds that you need decent quality brass in order to keep the cases intact during extraction. Even then, any G3 operator or HK91 owner will tell you that a HK roller lock rifle will mangle the living crap out of brass because of the fluted chamber. If you like to reload, the HK is not for you. As with the FAL, the G3 is capable of good accuracy (especially the G3A2 and A3 variants with free-floating barrels, as well as the HK91), but they're not thousand-yard bullseye rifles. They used to make an accurized sniper G3, the G3 SG/1, but those were just hand-picked accurate G3s fitted with 6x42 scopes and adjustable cheek pieces.

The M1 is pretty much the epitome of the Garand design, the most accurate .308 battle rifle out there, and also the most "conventional" design. I'd mortgage my eternal soul for a nice M1A National Match, but I haven't been able to set aside that kind of casual spending cash yet. They're of a different design school than the stamped-steel HKs or the FALs, but there's absolutely nothing that these rifles can't do just as well as the HK or FAL.

Tough call. For what all these rifles go for these days, I'm almost tempted to say that the M1A would be the best buy. HK91s are way too expensive, and nice pre-ban FALs are not much cheaper than a good M1A, if any.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top