Survival rifle...

[tombogan03884]

You are not being honest, you were being ignorant, now your just being stupid.
"Assault Rifle" is an English translation of the German phrase "sturm gewehr "  that was coined to describe a specific fire arm previously referred to as the MP-44, it primary distinguishing feature was the ability to fire either semi or full auto at the flip of a switch.
Civilian mass market fire arms do not have full auto capability therefore they can not be classified as "assault rifles" since they lack one of the primary features of that category. The M-1 was a Carbine, the M-2 more closely resembles an assault rifle, however since it fires a pistol cartridge it does not fully fit in that category either since another feature of the StG, and therefore the entire class, is the use of an "intermediate cartridge", this is a rifle cartridge shortened to work in a smaller receiver.
Because the 3rd design prerequisite of the class was compactness even the M-16 is not a true "assault rifle as the 20 inch barrel disqualifies it.   The only true "Assault rifles I can think of right now besides the StG 44 are the AK series and the M-4.
They fit the description of select fire carbines firing an intermediate cartridge.
If you are screwing up the phrase "assault weapon" you are equally wrong because there is no such thing, that was a marketing gimick dreamed up by Peter Helmke back when the Brady bunch called themselves Handgun Control Inc.

People wonder why I have so little respect for colleges and the assholes that get passed through them, it's because they come out dumber than they started.

[fightingquaker13]

Thanks for the history lesson neither of us needed. I find it odd you posted this as we are both about the most unPC people I know. Funny thing is, that you rail against PC on the left (as you should) and yet buy into it on the right. Let me try again. We will call the "weapon formely known as assault" Ziva. Ziva shoots an intermediate cartridge designed for medium range, is semiauto, has a large Mag capacity, low recoil and is low weight. "Ziva" can be distinguisghed from Battle rifles as the round has less penetration. "Ziva" weighs less, and has less  ammo weight and its recoil is much lower Sadly, the battle rifle, even chopped to a carbine will give a longer potential range.. Is that PC enough for you? Honestly, to answer Garandforlife, buy the SOCOM if you want a true multi-tasker. Buy the AR if your neighbors are close and you already have a deer gun.
FQ13

[TAB]

neither, 22

I can care more ammo, in a smaller package and there is nothing in north america that I can not drop with one shot.

oh yeah, its also alot cheaper and I'm not going to attract as much attention when I light one off.



Out of the two, I'd most likly go with the socom for 1 reason and one reason only... the M1a platform has been around a lot longer then the rugers piston ar. 

[warhawke]

My STHF, TEOTWAWKI rifle is a CETME or H&K91 or an FN FAL (18" barrel) or a standard M-1A or even an M-1 Garand. I want a rifle that will kill large game as well as people. I want to put them down with as few rounds as possible. I want to hit out to 600 meters and hit with authority at that distance. I do not plan to run around with 1000 rounds of ammo when I'm doing other things to stay alive. I'm not assaulting Son Tay, I'm trying to keep my ass alive when I cannot depend on others, survival is like a recon mission, I want to see the other guy first and avoid him I only want to shoot if I have to and I want to get the hell out or put the other guy down quick, noise draws attention and attention is the last thing I want or need.

The SOCOM 16 is a special purpose rifle not a main battle rifle, the short barrel makes it lighter and handier but increases noise and flash while reducing velocity, hitting power and range. I want at least an 18" barrel on a 7.62NATO rifle to give me the best performance across the whole spectrum of engagements. Yes a long barrel and a heavy rifle is a PITA but then the chips are down you want every advantage you can get. For those who will inevitably pipe up about how they don't need 600 yard range in their urban environment, I live 42 years in Detroit and I can tell you that there are 600 yard and longer shots around every corner and down the street and across the parking lot and everywhere else you want to look. Besides even if you never need the range you might well need the power. Brick buildings, telephone poles, hedges, houses, cars and all kinds of other cover can be turned into concealment if you have enough gun. I want to hit the guy I'm shooting at even if he hides behind a tree, a 7.62 can do that, .223's mostly won't.

For the record though, If I could get a 6.5 Grendel in a decent platform and 123 and144 grain rounds at a decent price I would trade in my 7.62's in a heart-beat, but so far that hasn't happened. I drool for a Beretta ARX-160 in 6.5 Grendel with an ACOG optic, it's not the best design I've ever seen, but it is close. 

[bafsu92]

My STHF, TEOTWAWKI rifle is a CETME or H&K91 or an FN FAL (18" barrel) or a standard M-1A or even an M-1 Garand. I want a rifle that will kill large game as well as people. I want to put them down with as few rounds as possible. I want to hit out to 600 meters and hit with authority at that distance. I do not plan to run around with 1000 rounds of ammo when I'm doing other things to stay alive. I'm not assaulting Son Tay, I'm trying to keep my ass alive when I cannot depend on others, survival is like a recon mission, I want to see the other guy first and avoid him I only want to shoot if I have to and I want to get the hell out or put the other guy down quick, noise draws attention and attention is the last thing I want or need.

The SOCOM 16 is a special purpose rifle not a main battle rifle, the short barrel makes it lighter and handier but increases noise and flash while reducing velocity, hitting power and range. I want at least an 18" barrel on a 7.62NATO rifle to give me the best performance across the whole spectrum of engagements. Yes a long barrel and a heavy rifle is a PITA but then the chips are down you want every advantage you can get. For those who will inevitably pipe up about how they don't need 600 yard range in their urban environment, I live 42 years in Detroit and I can tell you that there are 600 yard and longer shots around every corner and down the street and across the parking lot and everywhere else you want to look. Besides even if you never need the range you might well need the power. Brick buildings, telephone poles, hedges, houses, cars and all kinds of other cover can be turned into concealment if you have enough gun. I want to hit the guy I'm shooting at even if he hides behind a tree, a 7.62 can do that, .223's mostly won't.

For the record though, If I could get a 6.5 Grendel in a decent platform and 123 and144 grain rounds at a decent price I would trade in my 7.62's in a heart-beat, but so far that hasn't happened. I drool for a Beretta ARX-160 in 6.5 Grendel with an ACOG optic, it's not the best design I've ever seen, but it is close. 
[/quote

Funny you mention the 6.5 Grendel because I'm just finishing my Grendel build. I got rid of all my .308/7.62 rifles except 1 bolt gun because of the cost, weight and storage size of the ammo. I would never plan on carrying around 1000 rds of anything if I could help it but when it comes to the 7.62 platform it's hard to afford those 1000 rds. Grendel ammo has become very doable, there is Wolf Gold 123 gr that is made by PRVI and imported by Wolf. I just bought 2 cases (2k rds) at $12 a box. Not 5.56 pricing but still much cheaper than any decent 7.62 or 6.8SPC. I really like the SOCOM and was looking to get one but decided against it because of ammo costs and the fact that everyone in my family is now familiar with the AR platform. We'll stick to our AR's in 5.56 (or .22LR) for most uses and training but will eventually have a few in the family armory for larger needs. I will initially have a Leupold CQT 1-3 mounted to it since I have one sitting on my bench but I plan to change that to a GRSC 1-4 in a LaRue mount fairly soon.

The argument between a 16" or 18" barrel on a 7.62/.308 is way overblown. When I decided to cut down my .308 bolt gun to make a scout setup I did a lot of research on this. Anything shorter than 16" suffers heavily in this platform but the difference between 16" and 18" can be almost completely covered by proper ammo picks. With most ammo about 80% of the powder has burned in 16" but if you handload with a faster burning powder or try some different factory ammo that is hotter or has faster burning powder (Hornady has one for sure) you can totally close that gap. We went to the range with a 16" .308 bolt gun and a 18" FAL and the velocities were never more than 50 fps faster on the FAL with the same ammo. We used at least 6 different loads. The lockup of a bolt gun held enough pressure compared to the auto loader to close the gap but even in a 16" auto loader (SOCOM) which we later tested on a different day the numbers didn't go down much at all. Another 15-37 fps depending on load. So at the most the difference between loads in a 16" SOCOM was 82 fps with some ammo coming in at less than 20 fps difference. I know it's not totally scientific since it was on different days in different conditions but I live in Central Florida so it's not like I'm dealing with huge weather extremes a couple weeks apart. By the way the Grendel load burns so fast they say you can go down to a 12-14" barrel without much loss. I'll be testing this down the road as soon as I can procure a short Grendel barrel at a decent price. Right now I haven't been able to find anyone who makes one so I'd have to get one cut down.

As far as this thread my vote was the piston AR although I would take the Sig out of the 2 you were considering. I have a Sig 556 and really like it and don't know enough about the Ruger. As nice as the Sig is though I'd trade mine in a minute for another PWS Mk. 116 http://www.rainierarms.com/?page=shop/detail&product_id=2199 which I also own. This rifle puts anything I've ever owned to shame and is totally compatible with all AR parts less the piston/gas system. I really don't think you can buy or build a better 5.56 rifle for the money.

[Sponsor]

[tombogan03884]

FQ,  There is nothing "PC" about using proper terminology.
Your defense of ignorance and stupidity not only aids the anti's by blurring facts, it also contributes to the dumbing down of America by encouraging the misuse of words and phrases that have specific meanings.
And quit trying to pass yourself off as "unPC". If you drank any more of the kool ade you would burst.

[RevLouM]

The BEST survival rifle is the one IN YOUR HANDS when you need it.  The SECOND BEST is the one you already own and have trained with.  The THIRD is the one you own and haven't trained with.  The FOURTH....wellllll....I'm sure ya'll get the idea by now.

IF I could only grab ONE and GO, it would take me a sec to decide on the Garand or the FN-FAL.  The Garand has been proven by the millions, and the FN has been proven by my experience IRL.

I am a NON "supporter" of 5.56, and I consider the "carry more ammo" argument specious.  The "rounds-fired per kill" statistics, (oh...google it), were something I FOUND OUT about..."the hard way".  

If you haven't trained, then LOTS of ammo is good.  If you HAVE trained, you know where each round is GOING.  YES, you CAN drop a moose with a .22, but I would HATE to be there when you miss...

(Edit to add...)  While I DO OWN some foreign-made firearms, (M-N M91/30's), ALMOST ALL decisions I make are based on USA made if I can "have my druthers"...THEN I make decisions based on mission-specific issues...

[tombogan03884]

In this case the best would be the one he already has a down payment on  

[RevLouM]

In this case the best would be the one he already has a down payment on  

Yup.  That would be the way it rolls!

[garand4life]

The more i think about the 2 I start to really push to the SR556. I'm not in a situation where large game is a likely target.
Example: Last summer in south western NM, just shy of the AZ border, a rancher encountered two pickup trucks with multiple armed individuals crossing his property as he was working. It is believed that these individuals where picking up couriers bringing drugs or illegals over the border. Fortunately he managed to get out of the area without incident but judging by the number of similar incidents along the border I would not want to put myself in a worse situation since it's in these areas that i"ll be visiting family.