Author Topic: Battle rifles (223 need not apply)  (Read 62601 times)

MichellesFURY

  • Forum Member
  • **
  • Posts: 4
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Battle rifles (223 need not apply)
« Reply #40 on: October 27, 2007, 08:36:01 AM »
I have two DPMS .308's, an AP4 and a SASS (which I have not fired as of yet).  My initial impressions (other than it being an oversized M4) was the weapon is very robust and well made, with an extremely tight fit on all parts.

Obviously, this might be a detriment in dirty, dusty, frozen "non-range" scenarios.

After breaking in the barrel I put another 100 rounds through it, and was amazed at one 3 shot 1.5 inch 100 yard group with South African Battle Pack .308 through a hot barrel (IMHO this is a sub MOA shooter with the right ammo).  Also no malfunctions.  No big deal, again-this is a range environment.

I have been unable to really put it through the paces of a carbine school to really see what it's got under heavy shooting conditions, but feel it would do as well as any other .223/5.56 variant out there.   I also really like the FAL, despite not being personally fond of the ergos.  M14 same thing.

Any one here really beat the snot out of a DPMS .308...?  ???

Webb

  • Forum Member
  • **
  • Posts: 1
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Battle rifles (223 need not apply)
« Reply #41 on: November 01, 2007, 07:38:23 PM »
I'd go with a AR-10.  Familuar with the system and love the .308, just wish it was cheaper.  Really like my M1A but it's just too classy for a fighting rifle.  That said I'll never give up my M1 Garands - now that is a rifle.

Bill

Rastus

  • Mindlessness Fuels Tyranny
  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6820
  • DRTV Ranger
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 601
Re: Battle rifles (223 need not apply)
« Reply #42 on: November 08, 2007, 06:20:37 AM »
The accuracy thing between the AR-10 and FAL has sold me.  For what I'm using it for (no zombie armies out here in Oklahoma....yet) I appreciate the accuracy provided by the AR-10 (wish I could afford an SR-25) and...since I clean after each use and usually keep each use to less than 200 rounds (on my AR's anyway)...reliability should not be an issue for my use.

Thanks for the info.

Also...I'm still stuck on that poodle shooter thing....I like the looks my friends give me when I mention that.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
-William Pitt, British Prime-Minister (1759-1806)
                                                                                                                               Avoid subjugation, join the NRA!

NoFE02

  • Forum Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Battle rifles (223 need not apply)
« Reply #43 on: November 18, 2007, 07:14:46 PM »
Easy question. A box stock Valmet M62 7.62x39. Best AK variant ever made  :-*

NoFE02

  • Forum Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Battle rifles (223 need not apply)
« Reply #44 on: November 18, 2007, 07:31:38 PM »
DPMS's 308 is also very interesting. I have not got one yet, but it is on my short list. A buddy had one and was having trouble making up his mind on a scope so I offered to put a couple of my scopes on this rifle for him to see/shoot. I was dialing in the scope at 50 yards and had one hit about center of the X ring. Shot another round to confirm zero and it went right thru the same dang hole. No bull, shooting Wolf steel case ammo. I like FAL's, M1's, Springfields, and al the rese, but none of them is as accurate as the DPMS LR308 I had the pleasure of shooting.

Sponsor

  • Guest
Re: Battle rifles (223 need not apply)
« Reply #45 on: Today at 01:03:22 AM »

USSA-1

  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 202
    • US Shooting Academy
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Battle rifles (223 need not apply)
« Reply #45 on: November 21, 2007, 07:14:58 AM »
I have a slightly modified DPMS 308 that I use for competition.  It had a tight chamber and the gas system needed some adjustment after I cut and recrowned the barrel, but it now runs very well.

I beat on it pretty hard during practice and it's held up pretty well.  I've got a little over 3,000 rounds through it and it's still quite accurate with no major problems ( I had to replace the extractor spring after 2,500 rds.)

Erik
"Occupo Mens"
Win the Fight

Watch The Tactical Rifle Channel

NoFE02

  • Forum Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Battle rifles (223 need not apply)
« Reply #46 on: November 22, 2007, 02:51:22 PM »
Should the SHTF and any of you ever need to shoot me, please use a .223.

warhawke

  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 365
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Battle rifles (223 need not apply)
« Reply #47 on: November 22, 2007, 03:41:57 PM »
Should the SHTF and any of you ever need to shoot me, please use a .223.

Nice try pal, but if I need to shoot you I want you to fall down and not bother me anymore. I doubt I would need to do so for a nice guy like you.

As for the AR-10 copies, I've said it before and I'll say it again, the 5.56 is bad enough in a weapon that sh**'s where it eats, 7.62 NATO is going to be an even bigger problem. Heck, if the HK/CETME?PTR weapons had a last-round bolt hold you wound never pry it away from me. So I run with the FN right now, which is the best of the MBR's for SHTF work.
"Una salus victus nullam sperare salutem"
(The one hope of the doomed is not to hope for safety)
Virgil

1chance2many

  • Forum Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Battle rifles (223 need not apply)
« Reply #48 on: November 22, 2007, 04:30:50 PM »
My vote is for the B.A.R. There is just something about the sound that makes me feel warm and safe :o
"When I was seventeen I could not belive how dumb my father was...
When I turned twentyseven I could not belive how much he learned in ten years."

NoFE02

  • Forum Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Battle rifles (223 need not apply)
« Reply #49 on: November 22, 2007, 10:01:14 PM »
SE Asia ruined my confidence in staking all my cookies on anything AR, regardless of calibre. I know they say that most of the problems have been "solved" or whatever, but I still just can't seem to take them seriously. Just are not in the same class as an AK, FAL, M1, M14, and I suppose SIG, & HK battle rifles.  In 0 to 600 yard terrain, a good AK would be hard to beat. If talking mountains or desert give me a FAL, M14, or M1 in that order.

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk