First .308 Self Loading Rifle

Should I get a PTR91, M1A, AR10, or FAL for my first REAL FUCKIN NATO rifle and why?

Attached: REALFUCKINNATO.jpg (996x561, 136K)

Other urls found in this thread:

treelinem14.com/USGI-M14-Wood-Stocks-Military-Finish_c39.htm
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Ptr chews brass
M1a is laughable accuracy, bullet selection
A piston ar10 is a great choice, but pricey
Fal are good but a bit of a meme

DPMS/SR-25 .308 AR is your best bet. It's the only option that can get sub-moa. PTR is a good second choice. FALs are really fun to shoot, but the minute of man accuracy kind of kills it for me. It just depends on what you're looking for.

AR-10. Ideally, build it. If not, Savages msr10 hunter is cash money.

Get an actual modern design, not some shit that was obsolete 4 decades ago. The correct answer is SCAR-17

PTR-91 is a good first choice because they're cheap, reasonably accurate and balls reliable. That's if you don't mind the ergonomics which are quite poor.

M1A is a viable rifle. I have one and love it. Good accuracy and reliability but they are expensive and maybe not quite as high speed low drag as some might like. I recommend looking into the JRAs too because you get more for the money. Also people will talk shit about the M14 non-stop which is mostly hyperbole and you will get shit for liking it.

AR-10 is a very good option because they are accurate and quite affordable, although I've seen a lot that don't work all that well. They trouble guns are usually mutant kit builds, because people assume you can build them out of random parts just like the 15. I recommend buying it as a complete rifle or at least getting everything important from the same manufacturer built to the same standard.
Personally I had a CMMG MK3 and it was very accurate, but didn't work well and was very picky on ammo.

FALs, I will catch shit for this but I think they have cool factor and ergonomics but nothing else going for them. Other than DSA there's not much on the US market for them so you're stuck buying used ones off FAL files or assembling parts kits. They are also not known for superb accuracy either.

>M1a is laughable accuracy, bullet selection
Actually they have pretty good accuracy for a cold war battle rifle. Usually on par with a G3 and a bit better than a FAL. The excellent sights help too.
As for bullet selection I suppose you mean they're picky on ammo which means something is wrong with mine because I can run everything from Tulammo to M118 to commercial .308 with no issues. The gas system is very good at ironing out all of the kinks, which is important because .308 comes with a wide variety of loadings.
SCAR-17 is also very good but VERY expensive and hard to justify given how little a decent AR-10 costs these days.

The ignorance is palpable.

>Are you a poorfag?
PTR-91
>Do you like old aesthetics?
M1A
>Do you want reliability, accuracy and plentiful accessories and are willing to pay for it?
AR-10
>Do you like reliable weapons that look amazing and are willing to pay for it?
FAL

if you want to buy a BR that is 100% reliable with any mags or ammo you buy, PTR

if you want wood, M1A,

if you want to customize more than you shoot, AR10

AR10 will be the best if you tune it to what you're doing and as it's the lightest it is probably the best bet too if you plan to hunt with the rifle

You can shoot sub moa from the shoulder? Wow. Or are you bench rest shooting only? Because in practical terms the rifles are more accurate than you are ever going to be able to shoot from the shoulder or bibod. If you want sub moa at long distance only get a bolt action magnum caliber.

>Do you like old aesthetics?
BM-59

Ftfy

I dont get where the m1a inaccuracy meme comes from. Its a multi lug rotating bolt. Spec ops used m14 as DMRs for a long time after Vietnam.

Obligatory get a C308 shillpost

Stale copypasta about the M14 failing as a military rifle which is only half true. They wanted it to shoot like a sniper rifle but double as an LMG and be cheap. No cold war battle rifle could do that. QC problems amplified it substantially.

The M14 as designed is a capable rifle, but the quality has to be there. If corners are cut, it suffers more than most.

I thought it came from Springfield having bad QC

What exactly is the difference between a BM59 and an M14?
It looks like JRA makes both of them and they look mostly the same. All I know is that the BM59 is more like the Garand, but I don't know what that does in pracice.

>if you want wood, M1A
I bought a standard model with a black composite stock, but I plan on getting a wood stock. The problem is that I can't seem to find where they're sold.

BM59s have lots of garand parts in them and are long stroke gas piston. M14s are short stroke gas piston and do not share parts with the garand. BM59 and M14 mags are not interchangeable.

>Not wanting to slot floppies and wear short shorts
Obvs buy the FAL, I love mine.

>multi lug
It has 2.

No joke the m14s reputation has been tarnished heavily by Springfield's fuck ups, friend of mine has one built on a TRW parts kit and it's awesome.

Hell, I honestly don't see why more people don't have an example of each cold war battle rifle.
For example:
FALs are the most comfortable and fastest of the "Big 3" for me to use so I'm putting some money into my kit build right now.
Have a PTR because g3s are neat and mags are cheap.
Will be putting money away after the fal is done for an LRB or Fulton m14, preferably a basic GI configuration with Criterion chrome lined barrel

treelinem14.com/USGI-M14-Wood-Stocks-Military-Finish_c39.htm

There you go.
They are different rifles. BM59 is more if a Garand in .308 with a box magazine and it shares more parts. M14 is a product improved Garand and is built along similar lines but uses a short stroke gas system and uses very few Garand parts.

Most importantly the magazines are different and BM59 mags are far less common in the US so you will be paying a premium for them.
SAI QC could be better but they do work and are safe to fire. They mostly cut corners on cast receivers (which a lot of M14geries use), MIM small parts and inferior polish.

I'll have to dig up the specs but the rifles only had to meet something like 3 or 4 moa to be serviceable.
The other thing is that the gun can't really be free floated and the stock plays a large part in accuracy because of.
I'm not sure into the details but a bit of googling will show you all the crazy shit people have to do just to get under 2 moa out of them.
They're generally more accurate than most FALs though so they are definitely serviceable.

A TRW parts kit on an LRB receiver is about the best way you can possibly go.

As for SAI I think they're kind of like what DSA is to FALs. Could be better but they do work well enough.

I've seen and owned some god-awful M14gery builds. My first one was a Federal Ordnance M14A that was scrapped for parts because the receiver was in fact compromised and it was unsafe to fire.
I've seen some basketcase early Norinco imports, including one where the receiver cracked from being too brittle and another where the bolt was too soft and the headspace stretched to unsafe levels. My local gunsmith loves M14s and has these artifacts sitting around.

The more I learn about the m14 the more it makes me think of the 1911.
It's a good gun but it's heavily affected by build quality.
But pays off in a nice shooting gun.

>There you go.
Thanks!

Attached: #0004_[20180511].jpg (500x750, 95K)

That's the biggest objective downside of the M14. It was designed at a time when labor was cheap, it wasn't a problem to make a factory full of very specialized machine tools staffed by many people who only know how to operate one or two of them.

Today's guns are made by fewer people with more versatile tools and require almost no fitting. We can make a receiver out of extruded aluminum and cut holes in it or mill the whole thing out of a block on a CNC machine. Everything will fit perfectly on it afterwards too.

This approach works great for an AR-15 or a SCAR, but can't be applied backwards on an M14 or a FAL quite so well. The receivers are load bearing so they need to be steel which is more difficult to cut and the final shape is very intricate so it takes many machine operations, each of which has to be double checked to ensure correct dimensions. It's a very time-consuming process.

When materials were more expensive than man hours it was no problem. But today it's the other way around. A SCAR costs very little to make and can shoot circles around an M14 or FAL because not only is it more advanced but it's perfectly suited to the processes and realities of modern manufacturing.

The SCAR is more expensive than the fal/m1a/g3 because its a modern design. The others were obsolete before your parents were born. SCAR is accurate, reliable, ergonomic, modular and light. Fal is reliable but nothing else, g3 is reliable and accurate and that's it, m1a is accurate and reliable and ergonomic but lol attaching a scope and its a pig, ar10 is accurate and modular but unreliable. SCAR makes no compromises.
>inb4 SCAR breaks scopes
So did the FAL, G3, and AR10 when they came out. Big semiautos break scopes. The forward jolt when the bolt slams home is tough on scopes, which are reinforced against rearward recoil. Scope manufacturers reinforced their internals, and now they're good. Leupold and US Optics were the ones that never had a problem with breaking on any of these rifles, so everybody else including Trijicon had to play catch-up.

>rifles only had to meet something like 3 or 4 moa to be serviceable.
M16 and m4 only have to meet 4moa *new*. Suck on that log ARfags.

It also probably costs less to make than a FAL or M14 (but not a G3, those were pretty much designed from the ground up to be cheap). I don't know the exact figures but it's streamlined for efficient production with modern methods which requires minimal hands-on time. That's the most expensive part, followed by tooling around materials are nearly negligible.

Fact is on the ground they sell for around 3k. That's a lot. It's probably largely to do with how they get around 922r by importing them from Belgium as gimped single shots and then converting them stateside with American parts.
The dumb part of this is that they already have a full assembly facility making them here for US government contracts, so this headache is unnecessary. They could either expand that facility or sell the Belgian made rifles to the feds, because 922r doesn't apply to them anyway. That would be one way to cut costs.

Of course the government contracts are the priority. Also I bet a good chunk of that 3k if not most of it is pure markup. They could sell it cheaper but they're not able to meet demand and enough people are willing to pay the premium so why charge less? Turn a supply shortage into a product with a sense of exclusivity.

Did some digging and apparently the government pays around 2k per unit for the SCAR heavy. That's a lot more than I thought, since the margins on these contracts tend to be tight they must be putting a lot of attention into each one.

So apparently I proved myself wrong.

and it's completely worth it. the scar is probably the only pricy thing I've ever bought that didn't give me a buyer's remorse panic attack afterwards. I remember how impressed I was when I got my first AR15 - with how advanced and forward thinking the design was for being from the 50s. the scar is the same way but on a higher level. it's pure wizardry. with that said if you don't like them, then you don't like them. don't pay 3k for something that you're not crazy about.

Attached: signal-2018-04-24-174401.jpg (1080x950, 111K)

>XCR-M

Attached: iu[1].jpg (1500x1126, 1.07M)

Some sort of AR10 so you don’t suffer buyers remorse.

And they can be made sub MOA without needing a private gunsmith to baby them.

Point, this is a basic Colt chrome-lined lightweight.

Attached: colt light weight.jpg (459x495, 80K)

This is how I look at it too. When I really looked into getting a mid level/high end 22" M1A with a SAGE body kit and accurizing it, a high end AR or SCAR just made more sense. If it weren't for all the government funded trigger time on an AR platform I would have gone for a SCAR 17 and bought a bunch of conversion kits and different barrel lengths

Pretty great, especially for a light barrel. I've got a BCM ar15 chrome line 16" (i dont recall where their barrels come from) with a heavier barrel that's somewhere sub-moa with 68gr hornady bthp to add to the list. Only a 6x magnification so I can't tell for certain just what MOA it is but I'm confident I can do 1" every time as is.

A lot of people here are speaking as though a scar will be as accurate as an ar10 and that's rarely the case. DI versus piston. It is about as accurate as a human will be under most circumstances though.

Get a SCAR

Attached: _20180103_120020.jpg (1552x4010, 1010K)

Other than what people have already said another issue is that early m14's were horribly manufactured and naturally had horrible issues; issues which were resolved when decent QC practices were put in place. Another source is a report from the 60's or 70's absolutely trashing them/practically calling them the worst us service rifle ever.

What are all the worthwhile modern or upcoming .308 autoloaders?
Aside from the usual suspects, I'm aware of the RFB, MDR, Tavor 7, and APC308.

ping machine in .308

Finish an 80% ar10 and laugh at the gun control nuts

Noguns here. Would a Savage Axis in .308 be too much for a first time rifle? Would it cause flinching?

yes. just don't flinch. lots of dry fire practice.

or work your way up from .22lr

What steps do you take by "accurizing" an m1a?

What about one of them "sporterized" veprs in .308?

I'm not who you were replying to, but you're retarded. To put it simply, a 6moa shooter with a 6moa rifle will shoot worse than that same 6moa shooter with a 1moa rifle. From the shoulder, from a bench, it doesn't matter. Why not have the most accurate rifle for either purpose?
>the rifles are more accurate than you are ever going to be able to shoot
I bet you're the same faggot who makes fun of people for using optics. It's super fucking easy to outshoot your rifle when you train with it for a bit. Most battle rifles aren't even sub-moa guns. Why would a sub-moa shooter want a worse rifle? You don't even seem to have a firm grasp on what bolt actions offer, much less magnums. Shut the fuck up. Clean your c308 or whatever it is you own. Read up. Shut the fuck up again. Practice. Shut up. Then start posting. I don't even believe you have a gun, I don't even believe you have shot one.

what about em? they're fucking great AKMs.

MDR is already out, so not exactly "up and cumming"

>implying the only reason you like the m1a isn’t because it’s the only one a calicuck can own

Sacrilege, get a ping machine in God's chosen caliber, 30-06. Then if you are feeling it, get a BM-59 in .308

The roller delayed blowback chews brass is an overstatement. Don't get me wrong, it is rough on brass but I can easily reload bass from my PTR91 several times without problem.

Oh yeah, hells yeah. BM59s are awesome.

what magnification is preferred for a .308 16" barrel, self loading rifle??? asking for a friend.

Attached: signal-2018-05-03-222825.jpg (1025x1024, 136K)

B M 5 9
M
5
9

4x

fluted chamber fucks brass as well

OP You want optics on your rifle?

if yes AR/SCAR

my pick for you M&P 10 is stupid reliable and affordable and does not weigh 10+ pounds

>fluted chamber fucks brass as well
No it doesn't. It just leaves sooty streaks on the brass that makes it look damaged.

sounds good to me too. I was leaning towards an acog. I mean my friend was.

Unitizing the gas system, adjusting the stock's tension on the action for what the gun likes, making sure the op rod isn't touching the stock at any point, running the gas as low as you can go while still cycling the gun, and Bedding the entire thing in the stock so the action doesn't move around and fuck everything up. M1A/M14's can be made into accurate bench guns but accurate guns won't stay REALLY accurate if you shoot them a lot or take them out of the stock to clean which ruins the bedding job. They are like a set of Webber carbs. They require a lot of work to keep them right, and they eventually need more work. And even then they aren't going to be accurate like a good AR10 or SCAR.

had one, it was ok. that extra feed space in front of the round can lead to issues every now and then

this
Beretta macaroni-59 is the new vintage hotness. swoop an older rifle while ya can you'll appreciate the SCAR that much more in the future

where to find L1A1 mags

A British armory in the 1980's

>2
sounds like that number is a multiple

Attached: 14579869200520s.jpg (256x245, 5K)

This

Attached: 20180425_163249.jpg (4032x3024, 3.66M)

I think these guns would look better if the muzzle terminated just after the front sight post, it would look kinda like a tanker garand with a detachable magazine.

>he doesn't know the "one, two, many" rule

Obvious choice.

Attached: b4c9271ef9389ebee0045ffef2fb269f-military-photos-military-history.jpg (480x720, 64K)

If I was fighting in that war and having to engage with terrs in the brush like they did I would prefer the FAL.
I own a PTR and a kit build FAL and in my experience the FAL is quicker to shoulder, balanced better for transitioning, faster to reload due to last round bolt hold open, and doesn't recoil quite as much.
The g3, particularly a PTR, is more accurate than the majority of FALs and has the reputation of being more reliable in adverse conditions (mud and sand particularly)
I don't think the advantages of the G3 are enough to make up for it's short comings on the FAL, FOR ME, some may like the handling of a g3 better.

Figure this is the best place to ask, but does anyone have a particular favorite plinking ammo that's under .75 cents a round? I know to look online and even but surplus, but does anyone have a favorite?

I shoot PPU in my Colt 901 and FAL.
I bought a PTR recently and haven't shot it yet so can't say how it works in it.
Should be a-ok.
You can find said ammo for under 50 cents a round. That's not bad for nowadays for new production 7.62 NATO.

All good. Thank you for your contribution.

>PTR
It's cheap. Old design. Poor performance.

>FAL
Because niggers. Old design. Poor performance.

>M14
Because fudds. Old design. Acceptable performance.

>AR10
Most configurable. Best ergonomics. Acceptable performance.

>SCAR
Because tactical. Expensive. Don't own one and can't speak to performance.

Had good luck with the Malaysian L2A2 and the Hirtenberg. Heard good about PMC. MEN is generally solid but haven't shot their 7.62.

this is wrong.
>g3 descendants more reliable, stable while firing
>fal a little faster to load and easier on hands

>my only standard of performance is accuracy
Buy a bolt action

How would you rank, for overall design, shootability, accuracy, etc, these 3?

>PTR91
>DSA FAL
>JRA M14
>JRA BM59
>Springfield M1A
>S&W MP10

depends on the brass d e s u
> 50 cent walmart brass case
> obvious scalloping
> SA surplus
> no detectable deformation
also, steel case don't scallop

Port buffer greatly reduces the smilies

AR10 > FAL > G3 > M14
The only rifle on your list I would buy is the PTR

not on the case mouth it doesn't

but I've got a rubber ankylosaurus pencil-topper i keep meaning to glue on right behind the ejection port.

28x

Any reason you'd only take the PTR even though the G3 is 3rd on that list?

whats the best brass-cased 308 ammo for the money?

Attached: x.jpg (400x510, 20K)

For practical purposes? Get an AR-10, build it the way that fits your desired usage pattern.

For fun? Get whatever tickles your pickle.

Who's this semen demon

BM-59s are Garands that were converted because it was cheaper than buying new rifles. The Italians swapped them to box mags and .308 and then added a bipod.

LRB is having a sale on parts kits right now. I got mine a few days ago and a Bula receiver on the way.

Attached: USA - M14 - before.jpg (4032x2268, 2.46M)

>the gun is more accurate than you'll ever be
This advice is for people purchasing a defensive handgun, and it's true for defensive handguns. This is a thread about .308 rifles. Post .308 rifle advice.

You can build a much better ar10 than S&W, m&p10 is a waste of money.
DSA is absolute garbage.

Dmr only started majorly in the gulf War iirc and mainly because they didn't have any other Dmr type guns. They really aren't that accurate compared to other options.