[theeuropeangoth]

All of them are considered to be exceptional marksman rifles and excellent battle rifles:.
What would be your weapon of choice?
Type down why.

My vote goes to HK G3(model G3A4)
-German made(Germans are dominant in HQ rifles since the '30.German made= quality assured)
-Much more reliable and with less parts.
-Relatively easy-to-clean.
-Very accurate.
-Great design.Accessories can be added and its modular(You can change its configuration even on the field in any moment)

What I don't like:
-A little too ''loudy'' when you load it.
-Maybe a little to heavy
-Maybe a little too long(But if we take in consideration its accuracy, I can forget about this issue)

 

[Jstrong]

Prolly an m1a,those short barrel FAL variants dsa makes are pretty dang slick too though

 

[locutus]

G3
Fal
M-14

The G-3 has no gas system. A really BIG advantage. As rugged and reliable as the AK series. Trigger really sux.

Fal and M14 more ergonomic by far, but the ancient "piston" type gas systems and the wooden furniture relegate them to curio status.

 

[robocop10mm]

Since my first "battle rifle" was an HK-91 (found one on the cheap 20 years ago), I vote German. I believe they are shorter than the other two in standard trim. Mags are WAY cheaper. Uber reliable.

If I had to do it all over again today, I would go M1A. Cheaper than HK and very accurate. American made is a plus.

AND Loctus, have you never seen the FAL or M1A with synthetic furniture? Of course they are avaiable sans the wood. Curio? I think not.

 

[locutus]

Even with synthetic furniture, they still suffer from that old "piston" style gas system.

 

[JonM]

A big negative in my book on the g3 are the diopter rear sights. I cant stand em.

I would hesitate to call any of em great in the accuracy department out of the box. Adequate for battle use yes but not great. The m1a or m14 can be accurized to great extent but it costs a lot of moola you coulda used to just get a better gun to start with. Then with all three you got issues with optics mounting.

 

[masterPsmith]

I would go with the M14/M1A. Unmatched in accuracy and reliability, ammo available anywhere. The only minus to me is weight, but hell, I'm 60 with a bad back. At times, my Mini-14 is too heavy for me to fire standing, because of my back.
With that said, I would still go with the M14/M1A.

Jim.......

 

[locutus]

A big negative in my book on the g3 are the diopter rear sights. I cant stand em.

I would hesitate to call any of em great in the accuracy department out of the box. Adequate for battle use yes but not great. The m1a or m14 can be accurized to great extent but it costs a lot of moola you coulda used to just get a better gun to start with. Then with all three you got issues with optics mounting.

Excellent points.

 

[SSGN_Doc]

For best overall I would go with the FAL. Good ergonomics. Simple reliable action. adjustable gas system for ammo/weather/dirtiness conditions and more gentle shooting.

Not super accurate out of the box but can be made into an accurate platform that requires little special maintenence to keep it there.

M1A. Again a good relaible design with a long sight radiaus and excellent sights. Still not super accurate out of the box. The open action lacks some rigidity and ability to mount optics easily in a good economic way. The wood stock with a pinched in action requires bedding to get a stable set for teh action and the bedding needs to be redone from time to time, or the entire stock platform has to be replaced.

G3. Harsh but reliable action. Ergos are not that great. Can be made accurate, but not cheaply. (See PSG 1 prices for an accuracy platform). Hard on brass.

Actually all three are probably a bit dated. All are best in their battle rifle configurations.

 

[rjgnwdc]

Ditto the M14

 

[jismail]

Fal and M14 more ergonomic by far, but the ancient "piston" type gas systems and the wooden furniture relegate them to curio status.

I would not think the piston action would classify the M14 as a curio or relic... if it aint broke, don't fix it.....

 

[locutus]

I would not think the piston action would classify the M14 as a curio or relic... if it aint broke, don't fix it.....

to each his own!

 

[UKBleedBlue]

I wouldn't consider my M21 as a curio or relic. Wooden furniture, check. Gas piston, check. Ability to engage and neutralize targets out to 1000 yds, check. To each his own....there's soul in wood and steel.
Oh yes, it's not light (11.6 pounds before optics, mount, bipod), and it's not cheap, but everyone has their dream and this one is mine. Repeatable, reliable, and a joy to shoot. It's easy to work on, easy to maintain, and easy to customize.
Cons...hand loading is necessary unless you go with milsurp ammo. Initial price can be scary. I bought (gently) used and was over $2k....don't expect to ever sell, but knowing about this rifle (tuned by Glenn Nelson) doubting that I will lose money.
Bottom line, everyone has their own opinion...and none are "wrong". It's up to the individual to figure out what is "best" in their eyes/situation.

 

[ikeepem]

Why mess around unless monies a concern...M1a or a Garand any and all day long..dependability, durability and accuracy, the military didn't bring back the M14 for no reason...mine was very accurate out of the box but with a Tubbs Op rod spring and Sadlak NM spring guide made a big difference and I ain't messin with it no more..

 

[M1Anut]

All three are great rifles. All three will run great. Accuracy, isn't that what it's all about? Iron sights at distance, thats where the M1A/M14 pulls away. Never had one shoot bad "out of the box"!

 

[Donn]

M-14. Yeah, it's heavy, (so are the mags/ammo), but with average skills, if you can see the target, you can hit it, iron sights or optics. I am partial, wish I still had my old basic training issue '14.