Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com

Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/)
-   Auto & Semi-Auto Discussion (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f25/)
-   -   If I were to buy a 7.62 NATO (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f25/if-i-were-buy-7-62-nato-81480/)

ArrizX 01-16-2013 08:42 AM

If I were to buy a 7.62 NATO
 
I would be inclined to buy a Springfield M1a

But what would you suggest?

I want a PTR 91 or a FAL or an FHN FNAR, but I think the Springfield is my choice. SCAR 17S is just getting too expensive!

I would want an AR-10 but I already have an Ar-15 and I would like something not on the AR platform. Have a forgotten any better/other semi auto .30cals? What would you buy?

robocop10mm 01-16-2013 02:38 PM

Any would be fine, really. Every gun you listed is a quality gun. One thing to be said for an AR-10 is there is some parts interchangability. If used to the AR platform, you will be able to manipulate the -10 easily. Something to be said for commonality.

WTS, I have an HK-91 and a CETME. Mags are cheap. No gas system to foul. Stocks run a bit on the short side for many Americans. Uber reliable and simple. FAL offers adjustable gas system for a variety of loads. M1A is classic American. Good mags tend to be expensive.

If I had to replace my Battle rifles, it would be AR-10 platform.

locutus 01-16-2013 10:23 PM

My first choice is the AR platform.
I have a DPMS LR308 A-P4

It has given me excellent service and it's light and handy.

The FNAR is another excellent choice.

ArrizX 01-17-2013 08:43 AM

Sounds like the Ar platform is the way to go and honestly i dont disagree. I just want variety because I want to build another ar-15 later. It would be cool to have something totally different from it. Scar 17 is soooooo sweet but when looking at the price difference I still think I would want the Springfield or even the nicest FAL I can find.

kbd512 01-17-2013 11:03 PM

Unless you just want a M14, then the FNH FNAR has rails for all the accessories you'd likely mount on a battle rifle (optics, weapon light, vertical grip, and bipod).

The PTR-91's balance and ergonomics are, in a word, horrible.

The FAL has better balance and ergonomics. Availability of replacement parts will be better with the FAL than PTR-91 or FNAR. The ability to mount weapon lights and other forearm accessories will require a rail system.

AR-10 reliability and parts availability is a mixed bag. Even really pricey AR-10's like KAC can have reliability issues.

I have a SCAR-17S. I think the SCAR has the most going for it out of the box, assuming you have magazines and replacement parts.

If I did not already own a SCAR 17S, I'd seriously consider the FNAR because you don't have to spend a lot of money on rails for accessories. The rail systems manufacturers like Springfield Armory like to put on M1A's make the rifle as unbalanced as the PTR-91 is with no rail system on it.

I'm opposed to weight disrupting balance. The 16" barreled FNAR I handled at the local gun show was balanced properly and that's what I'm into.

I'm not sure how crazy prices are right now, but I'm sure the price of FNAR is slightly more sane than the price of a M1A or FAL.

hoovco 01-17-2013 11:07 PM

I've wanted a FAL for the longest time. I think I'm going to have one within the next 3 months.

locutus 01-18-2013 03:11 AM

The FNAR is one sweet rifle. and it doesn't "look" evil.:p

I'd love to have an FAL, but only if I could get a genuine Belgian.

ArrizX 01-18-2013 03:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kbd512 (Post 1098337)
Unless you just want a M14, then the FNH FNAR has rails for all the accessories you'd likely mount on a battle rifle (optics, weapon light, vertical grip, and bipod).

The PTR-91's balance and ergonomics are, in a word, horrible.

The FAL has better balance and ergonomics. Availability of replacement parts will be better with the FAL than PTR-91 or FNAR. The ability to mount weapon lights and other forearm accessories will require a rail system.

AR-10 reliability and parts availability is a mixed bag. Even really pricey AR-10's like KAC can have reliability issues.

I have a SCAR-17S. I think the SCAR has the most going for it out of the box, assuming you have magazines and replacement parts.

If I did not already own a SCAR 17S, I'd seriously consider the FNAR because you don't have to spend a lot of money on rails for accessories. The rail systems manufacturers like Springfield Armory like to put on M1A's make the rifle as unbalanced as the PTR-91 is with no rail system on it.

I'm opposed to weight disrupting balance. The 16" barreled FNAR I handled at the local gun show was balanced properly and that's what I'm into.

I'm not sure how crazy prices are right now, but I'm sure the price of FNAR is slightly more sane than the price of a M1A or FAL.

Great post, thanks!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by locutus (Post 1098776)
The FNAR is one sweet rifle. and it doesn't "look" evil.:p

I'd love to have an FAL, but only if I could get a genuine Belgian.

Why belgian?

locutus 01-18-2013 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArrizX (Post 1098797)
Great post, thanks!!



Why belgian?


Because that would mean it was manufactured by FN, the folks who designed it, and manufactured the military versions that are beloved by soldiers and mercenaries throughout the world.

There's nothing wrong with the ones available new today, they just aren't "Genuine FN."

kbd512 01-18-2013 04:14 PM

If I were you, at this point I'd seriously consider a bolt-action rifle in .308 or .30-06. I keep a Remington 700 stainless in .30-06 with a 24" barrel for precision shooting. I have an older model with the checkered plastic stock, but the new SPS models are just as good.

You don't need a five thousand dollar rifle to hit the target at 600 yards. Having sub half MOA accuracy helps, but it's not a requirement. Most Remington 700's shoot pretty respectably out of the box. You can pay more for the PSS models if accuracy is really important to you. I'm not sure I'd bother paying more money for the actual M40 variant. My Remington just works and doesn't weigh 10 pounds or more. The optic I use cost more than double what the rifle costs, though.

Using cartridges in Hornady's Superformance line, you get an additional 150-200 FPS of velocity over standard ammunition. That's a nice little performance improvement for .308 and .30-06.

From looking at various auctions on GunBroker yesterday, I see that various new and used Remington .308 and .30-06 rifles are available at normal prices in both matte blued and stainless.

At distances where battle rifles become more useful than faster firing assault rifles, the advantages of a semi-automatic precision rifle over a bolt-action precision rifle are not as great.

Are you going to take on an advancing enemy unit the size of a squad or greater by yourself? Are you going to fire many rounds from one position before repositioning yourself to avoid incoming fire? Are you going to run your rifle unsuppressed? Do you have friends that you're providing overwatch or fire support for?

If you answered no to those questions, then having a semi-automatic .30 caliber rifle is probably not going to be as great an advantage over a bolt-action rifle. I purchased my SCAR 17S for fun, not because it's more useful than my Remington 700.

Any given Remington 700 or Winchester 70 in .308 or .30-06 will probably serve you just as well at a fraction of the price. Carlos Hathcock made many of his kills with a .30-06 Winchester bolt-action rifle. If there was any real problem with the 700, the Army and Marine Corps wouldn't continue to issue them to their soldiers.

In any event, get what you want but realize that there's no practical advantage over a quality bolt-action rifle if you're not trying to pin down a unit from the Chinese Army.


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:33 PM.

Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.