Author Topic: Battle rifles (223 need not apply)  (Read 61827 times)

DonWorsham

  • MWAG
  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 795
  • I feel more like I do now than I ever did
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Battle rifles (223 need not apply)
« Reply #10 on: October 12, 2007, 09:20:28 AM »
Now I have an m1a scout config. 

Would you post a picture?
Don Worsham
Varied Movements Performed Intensely

kilopaparomeo

  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 498
  • My own private purgatory...
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Battle rifles (223 need not apply)
« Reply #11 on: October 13, 2007, 04:15:05 PM »
I'll vote for the FAL.  I have both a full size StG58A and a Para in addition to a Loaded M1A and a PTR91...here's why I like the Para:

  • The FAL is the most ergonomic battle rifle I've ever used.  All the controls are right were they should be and are crisp in operation.  The rifle "comes right up" and I don't feel like I need to contort to wrap around it.
  • Dang, but this thing is handy. While it isn't really much shorter than other full size rifles I have, the weight distribution is all in the center making it FEEL more compact
  • The trigger is the nicest I've ever seen on a FAL. Fairly light, crisp let off. There is a fair amount of travel and creep in the first stage...overall much better than I expected. It is as crisp in letoff as the NM trigger on my M1A
  • The Extreme Duty scope mount is very nice...good build, clear T markings...a high quality piece and seems rock solid
  • The folding stock is solid and comfortable. Good cheekweld...doesn't give anything up to a solid stock.
  • FALs rock!






NRA Endowment Life Member
SAF Life Member
NRA Certified Rifle Instructor
Ultima Ratio Civis - "The last method of a citizen"

2HOW

  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1861
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Battle rifles (223 need not apply)
« Reply #12 on: October 14, 2007, 10:27:35 AM »

If you can only have one rifle, a .308 is probably the best all-around choice. However, if you are worried about home defense right now, rather than just in case of TEOTWAWKI, a .223 rifle is very appealing. If funds allow, it might be useful to get a rifle in each caliber. To avoid the need to learn two completely different rifles, the best
option may be to purchase the same design in both calibers. Several weapon systems [allowing commonality of training] are available for both rounds, including the AR-10/AR-15 and the HK91/HK93.
Most of the technical information given above comes from www.ammo-oracle.com. For those who are interested in the subject, this site has an extremely thorough discussion of the ballistics and
wounding potential of the .223 round.

 


I would have to agree  on the 5.56 ammo. If you are shooting either the m193 55gr. or the SS109 62gr. as long as the bullet velocity is maintained above 2700fps then there is dramatic fragmentation. This is due to the military cannelure, when the bullet enters flesh it starts to yaw (tumble) once the bullet reaches 90 degrees the jacket comes apart causing massive wound injuries. This is only true of military style ammo, not plinking ammo or wolf. I feel that the 5.56 is more effective then 308 at 200 yards or less, but after 200 yards I would only recommend the 308. I do not expect you to believe just me so go to www.ammo-oracle.com or there is a link on www.ar-15.com also. Another thing we must all take into consideration that the supply of surplus 308 is getting scarce and no major military is using it in mass quantities (that I am aware of) 5.56 is here to stay for a while and is readily available. In the event of a NATO or military invasion of US soil it is what the troops will be carrying so it would be nice to know that the enemies ammo can be used in our guns. Just a little food for thought. You also have to consider the surplus of 762x39 ammo, IMHO the 5.56 is stuck in the middle of the .308 and the 762X39.

AN ARMED SOCIETY IS A POLITE SOCIETY

warhawke

  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 365
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Battle rifles (223 need not apply)
« Reply #13 on: October 14, 2007, 06:45:12 PM »
The problem with surplus ammo is two-fold

1) New UN agreements have caused most countries to destroy old ammo stock to prevent them from falling into the hands of "Unapproved users" (meaning civilians), the few countries that refuse to follow these agreements are mostly com-bloc, meaning no 7.62 NATO

2) New ammo in the US is "Green" which means tungsten and other alloys, which is non-sporting ammo and therefore banned under the AP ammo ban.

add to that the Klinton era regulations that require US surplus ammo have the powder replaced before it can be sold. The bottom line is that ALL military surplus ammunition is about to dry up completely. I'm telling everyone to stock up on ammo now, $450 a case for 7.62 NATO is going to seem cheap soon.
"Una salus victus nullam sperare salutem"
(The one hope of the doomed is not to hope for safety)
Virgil

Pathfinder

  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6428
  • DRTV Ranger -- NRA Life Member
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 84
Re: Battle rifles (223 need not apply)
« Reply #14 on: October 14, 2007, 06:57:08 PM »
I'm telling everyone to stock up on ammo now, $450 a case for 7.62 NATO is going to seem cheap soon.

Klintoons - the gift that keeps on giving - just like syphillis.

.308 at $450/case - I'd love to get some, but where do find any decent ammo. I've seen precious little of the Indian crap, and while I have my Hirtenberger (5 battle packs  ;D BTW ) and scads of S. African, I am loathe to shoot it, rainy day and all that. I use mainly Wolf for knocking around.

Anyone know where there is decent .308 still avail by the case, even at $450?
"I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do this to others and I require the same from them"

J.B. Books

Sponsor

  • Guest
Re: Battle rifles (223 need not apply)
« Reply #15 on: Today at 11:14:47 AM »

kilopaparomeo

  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 498
  • My own private purgatory...
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Battle rifles (223 need not apply)
« Reply #15 on: October 14, 2007, 07:13:52 PM »
I have about 5000 rounds of Port and SA 308...wish I'd bought 10K rounds when you could pick up Port at $120/case.  This is supplemented by about 5000 rounds of surplus 308 components.

Sometimes I think about selling my stocks and buying a lot more components.  I could most likely turn those 5K of loaded rounds into about 12K of components.  Then again, surplus pulled 308 is getting pretty scarce too. 
NRA Endowment Life Member
SAF Life Member
NRA Certified Rifle Instructor
Ultima Ratio Civis - "The last method of a citizen"

2HOW

  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1861
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Battle rifles (223 need not apply)
« Reply #16 on: October 14, 2007, 08:29:07 PM »
Ammo man 189 per 500 .308 free shipping , cheapest Ive seen Wolf
AN ARMED SOCIETY IS A POLITE SOCIETY

Michael Bane

  • Global Moderator
  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1478
  • Host & Editor-in-chief
    • michaelBane.tv
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Battle rifles (223 need not apply)
« Reply #17 on: October 14, 2007, 08:45:17 PM »
You know, this is a great thread! Thanks, guys,

I want to get a "grown up" battle rifle, but I can't make up my mind between the FN-FAL and the M1A Scout/SOCOM. I have a lot more rounds through the SOCOM than various FALs, but I keep leaning toward the FAL for its ergonomics...specifically looking at the DS Arms SA58 guns. Any thoughts on those models???

How would you guys stack theFN-FAL against the current crop of AR style guns in 7.62/.308, specifically the DPMS rifles? I confess that i haven't shot any of the new DPMS rifles and probably won't be able to until around Thanksgiving, when I finish up filming SHOOTING GALLERY for Q1 2008.

I'm pretty much resigned to optics...a year's bout with shingles in my right eye has done a number on my vision (I'm very right eye dominant). It has stabilized, but I doubt I'm going to be doing any more long distance shooting with iron sights. The last carbine course I took I was using a current military 1X Aimpoint — I've used Aimpoints since the skinny tube first gens back in the '80s — and I was fine until we moved from the 50 yard line to the 100, where things started fuzzing out. I went to the 3X magnifier and the groups came back to normal.

Thanks for the recommendations!

Michael B




Michael Bane, Majordomo @ MichaelBane.TV

warhawke

  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 365
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Battle rifles (223 need not apply)
« Reply #18 on: October 14, 2007, 09:39:39 PM »
In the 1960's the Army stopped using ball powders in 5.56 because is clogged the gas systems in the AR's, so why build an AR in a caliber where the cheapest ammo is likely to contain it? Not to mention all the other issues with the AR.

As for the M-14 vs. the FAL, if you need optics anyway I would go for the FN. The primary advantage of the M-14 rifle is it's slightly lower weight and the better iron sights than the FN. I think the FN I describe, with the full optic top-cover would be excellent for you, though you might want the 16" barrel if size is a problem for you. I think the 18" barrel is a better compromise between size and efficiency myself, but your mileage may vary.
"Una salus victus nullam sperare salutem"
(The one hope of the doomed is not to hope for safety)
Virgil

warhawke

  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 365
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Battle rifles (223 need not apply)
« Reply #19 on: October 14, 2007, 09:56:45 PM »
These guys have about the best price on 7.62 NATO that ain't Wolf

http://www.ammo4guns.com/RIFLE_AMMO.html
"Una salus victus nullam sperare salutem"
(The one hope of the doomed is not to hope for safety)
Virgil

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk