# Tactical Rifle Dilemma



## Cabin Fever (May 10, 2002)

I can see the writings on the wall with this administration. I feel rather desperate to get the tactical rifle that Iâve always wanted before they are banned. In addition, I feel the need to stock up on a few thousand rounds of ammo before it becomes unavailable or prices escalate through the roof.

Iâve boiled down my choices to two models....my dilemma is this, which one. (Donât suggest both!) Those of you who have more experience then me with these firearms, please let me know what you think are the pros and cons of these weapons. Thanks!

*Colt HBAR (similar to a M16 or AR15) .223 caliber*









*Springfield M1A (similar to a M14) .308 caliber*


----------



## two_barking_dogs (Sep 17, 2002)

I own both 223/556 (AR15) and 308 (FAL). Both have there purposes so a lot will depend on how you want to use it and where.

As an example an AR weighs about 6 lbs and is easy to carry around all day. The FAL is about 15 lbs which after a day of lugging it around will make your arms tired. 

If I were looking to defend myself in the city at < 200 yard ranges then the AR would be my combat load. In the countryside here in the hilly wooded mountains again I'm going with the AR. But if I'm worried about MZBs driving in then I'm using the FAL because the 308 is a harder hitting round. Meaning If you hide behind a car door I would not have any issues with shooting you through the door with the FAL -vs- the AR mostly failing with that task.

Ammo prices are cheaper for 556/223 then 308 so it will be cheaper to stockpile ammo and practice with an AR. If TSHTF it might be easier to find AR parts and ammo 556/223 then 308 as there are alot of ARs out there with both civies and LEOs. Mag cost for the M1A will be much higher and remember that mags wear out and the gun doesn't work very well without them.

When I deer hunt unless I'm doing it on the farm or at <100 yards I use the 308. Both evil rifles cause me to get dirty looks from the non-hunters

Since you did not want the suggestion to buy both I'd lean toward the 308 if you have the cash and are decently fit due to the increased stopping power. 

If you get an AR make sure it has a "low shelf" -vs- a high shelf. Colts have a high. The folks in the 3 letter agencys don't like low shelf rifles due to their mod potential which was legal to do until 1986.


.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

I do not like the HBAR. As a rule, military equipment is mostly mass-produced junk and civilian knockoffs of military equipment is worse. You can usually find better variants. That said, there are some really reliable, field tested pieces of equipment out there that has stood the test of time. The M16, and by proxy the HBAR, is a universally unloved piece of equipment. If the time comes that you ever need that specific assault rifle, there will be better (full auto) versions available either laying on the ground to be picked up or for sale on the black market. Ammo is also a problem as it could be easily banned. It doesn't fit anything other than assault weapons.

The Springfield is my choice. It's a weapon designed for killing men who want to kill you first. It's also in a caliber that can be used for hunting. It's more reliable and durable, and more historic, which means it might be more difficult to ban.


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

The AR15 is CARP. Have never liked the way it handles or shoots. The acuaracy leaves something to be desired IMO.

The Sprinfield is the way I'd go. Better weapon, better track record and deadly acurate. 

JMO.


----------



## Texas_Plainsman (Aug 26, 2007)

Go for the .308 M1A.

It will be effective out to 800 yds or so. Depending on your AO, you might not think you'd ever have to shoot that far; however, what if you need to be at a vantage point guarding something or waiting for someone? It has enough power to turn cover into concealment (e.g. you can get the terrorist standing behind the tree).

Surely you already have an SKS or similiar carbine? The AR15 and other carbines are fine out 200 yds or so. There are terrorists (I use that term comically, like our government) that have taken 3 hits by an AR. That won't happen with the M1A.

Don't forget the extra mags. Get a minimum of seven. Six for your vest and one for the rifle. Get everything NOW.


----------



## Jack T. (Feb 11, 2008)

gideonprime said:


> The AR15 is CARP. Have never liked the way it handles or shoots. The acuaracy leaves something to be desired IMO.
> 
> The Sprinfield is the way I'd go. Better weapon, better track record and deadly acurate.
> 
> JMO.


Accuracy is bad? Is that why the AR platform has been dominating the rifle division at Camp Perry for years? Don't take my word for it. . .


> Camp Perry service rifle competitions are dominated by M16 type rifles, and the use of the M1A or the M1 is extremely limited. While I will probably never move to shooting a M16 type for competition, the individual who wants to be competitive should consider such a proposition. The M16 type has lower recoil, more inherent accuracy potential, and better ergonomics. Additionally the advent of 1/7 twist rate barrels for the M16 type allow the use of heavier bullets thereby allowing shooters to shoot very accurately out to 600 yards. Jon Y. Wolfe


Something to consider, which BD touched on, is ammo/parts availability. If things get *really* bad, you're gonna be more likely to find 223/556 ammo since it is used by .mil/leo.

As far as range? A gun that can hit at 800 yards is only effective if the *shooter* can make those hits. . .and very few people can make those shots.

One last point. . .the M1A was not affected at *all*, save mag capacity, during the last so-called Assault Weapons Ban.


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

Jack T. said:


> Accuracy is bad? Is that why the AR platform has been dominating the rifle division at Camp Perry for years? Don't take my word for it. . .
> 
> 
> Something to consider, which BD touched on, is ammo/parts availability. If things get *really* bad, you're gonna be more likely to find 223/556 ammo since it is used by .mil/leo.
> ...


For my personal taste and from my personal experience I have found the ar15 less accurate than most other weapons I have fired. Sure I can hit what needs to be hit but again from my experience and for my taste it is not the weapon I would choose. 

Also range is somewhat limited as of my last use of an AR15. Though I did find the comment about the improved accuracy over a distance with the new barrels.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

I can't hit a target at 600 yards, and it's iffy as to whether I could hit a man-sized target at 300 yards. I can hit a melon at 200 yards with my Mauser about 3 out of 5 shots. I am by no means an expert marksman, so accuracy at those distances doesn't factor into my decisions for survival firearms.


I consider the AR variants to be high performance rifles, and like all engineered equipment in the high performance categories, they break. I am not part of a military unit and do not have a half-dozen armorers on duty to take my broken weapon to, nor do I have the luxury of just handing it over to a supply officer and getting another one. 

There's three factors that I consider when purchasing a firearm:

1. Will it last? (Often based off of how long it's already lasted)
2. Will it serve the general purpose of killing whatever I decide to point it at? (Within reason ... bull elephants and Cape Buffalo are sparse on the ground here.)
3. Can I fix it myself with limited info I find on the internet?


----------



## Texas_Plainsman (Aug 26, 2007)

comments below



Jack T. said:


> Accuracy is bad? Is that why the AR platform has been dominating the rifle division at Camp Perry for years? Don't take my word for it. . .
> 
> *Concur, AR has very good accuracy.*
> 
> ...


Don't forget Elizabeth Dole's remark "no one needs an AK-47 to defend their home". As far as I know the AK, other than mags, wasn't affected either. Get them NOW.


----------



## Jack T. (Feb 11, 2008)

gideonprime said:


> For my personal taste and from my personal experience I have found the ar15 less accurate than most other weapons I have fired. Sure I can hit what needs to be hit but again from my experience and for my taste it is not the weapon I would choose.
> 
> Also range is somewhat limited as of my last use of an AR15. Though I did find the comment about the improved accuracy over a distance with the new barrels.


Fair enough. To be perfectly honest, *all* of my rifles shoot *way* better than I can shoot them at *any* range. I really should force myself to practice more. I don't even have optics on my ARs, and iron sights are not optimal for long range shooting.

I will grant you that the M1A hits a heckuva lot harder than the 223/556!


----------



## rickd203 (Sep 11, 2005)

You might want to consider going with the Ruger Mini-30. It's a 7.62x39 and does a real good job at ranges less that 200 yards. With my vision, I would have a tough time focusing on someone even at 100 yards. The scope you see here is just a 1x spotting scope. For my DPMS Panther, I have a 16x scope allow me to take advantage of it's long range capability.

Of course, I still think we should at least make plans to hook up if TSHTF. I have a good assortment of firearms but I can't shoot them all at the same time.


----------



## radiofish (Mar 30, 2007)

I would go with the M1A chambered in 7.62X51mm N.A.T.O..(.308 Winchester)...

I carried a Colt M-16A1 in the Marine Corps, and would rather have the heavier larger caliber rifle. Put on a sling and a leather cheek piece (pad) on the S.A. M1A and it will hit what you aim at out past 500 yards.

Myself, I prefer a M-1 Garand in .30-06 springfield for such a situtation


----------



## Bruenor (Oct 2, 2008)

I don't own either, but would get the M1A. Of course, personally, I'm looking at getting a Garand from the CMP.


----------



## YuccaFlatsRanch (May 3, 2004)

My job with my Fn/fal is suppresion fire. If I can keep their heads down my neighbor who is a world class target shooter will kill them quickly.


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

CF, I've been wrestling with the same issues. I've been into firearms since before I was born, and have my fair share. I've never felt the urgent need to get an 'evil black rifle'. Well, a few months back, when the markets started crashing, and the 'writing was on the wall', I started looking. Unfortunately, the cash wasn't there. Then the writing WAS written. Prices rose... and then, finally, my cash arrived.

I wanted a large capacity, easy to shoulder, suppression fire rifle. Looked at the .223, 7.62x39, and the 5.45x39. I know .223 would be the most 'available' ammo around, with all of Americas Armed Forces using it. Problem is, it's not cheap now. Like Ernie said, if things head way south, AR's and ammo would be just lying around. In the meantime, I picked up a couple of AK-74s... the 5.45 ammo is only around 12c a round. I can't buy .223 bullets alone (for reloading purposes). ~$300 will get you 2160 rounds. Buy 10k rounds, and basically get a free rifle, in the cost savings over .223 ammo.

Picked up a ak-47. Now need a lifetime supply of ammo.

Now, if I can get my main battle rifle, a .308 in M1A1, or a FN Fal, HK, or Cetme, I'll be set.

I waited till last to fill in the .308 hole in the preps, as I already have a .300 win mag. I've taken game at over 400yds. If need be, I could sandbag/tripod it and probably hit a pie pan at 800.

I'm sure you and WIHH already have some hunting rifles.

--------------
You can shoot a lot more with the AK, but with the .308 you can get out and touch something forcefully at long distances. My understanding is that the AR and the .223 round was designed to be easy to shoot, and to 'wound' people, so that it'd take two people to haul the wounded off the battlefield. The M1A1 was meant to knock em down, and make em stay down.

Out of the two, I'd go with .308... Buy lots of ammo... If you look at the HK clones, you'll see the magazines are almost free. I'd like to get the M1, but last time I checked, they were ?1400 or so... Of course, the 'finding' is the hard part. Just last night on GunsAmerica, I almost 'clicked' on a HK clone...

..............

I'm spending more than I should, I know. But deep inside, I know its wise. If they ban them, they'll increase in value. If they don't ban them, they'll increase in value. A win/win situation.

My .300win mag (Winchester SS Model 70) appreciated over 200% since I bought it. Bought for 500, new for ~1400, used ~1100.


----------



## CGUARDSMAN (Dec 28, 2006)

I have an AR and really like it ammo is cheap and the gun has proven itself accurate in my hands. If i had it to do all over I would build one myself with high quality components. I love the springfield but they weigh a ton....now if you really want a .308 get one in the AR platform like the Armalite AR-10


----------



## WindowOrMirror (Jan 10, 2005)

7.62 vs. .223... not even an argument. Big holes drain souls.

Just look at the grain size on the bullet... around 60 grains for the .223 and around 150 for the 7.62x51.

I stocked a bunch of Aussie 7.62 NATO and handloading parts for precision ammo.

have fun!

R

P.S. Had an AR-10... accurate but finicky. If you want a bench weapon and assume you will always fire from indoors, get an AR. If you expect your weapon to work regardless the conditions, I'd be after a FAL, but the Springfield will be your better bet.


----------



## countrymech (Nov 28, 2005)

The M1A is a wonderful rifle, but so is the HBAR as long as you take care of it and make some very simple upgrades. First, you live in Minnesota, what is the average range at which you will be engaging targets and how much fire do you want to lay down? Here in Wyoming we can see tomorrow's weather today. Shots off 300 yards plus are very common while hunting. I have 2 bolt guns chambered in .308 which are my choice for hunting. However, if you step out your door and see treelines around your home perimeter the best choice would be the HBAR and 30 round mags. 7 mags at least, 1 in the rifle and 6 in pouches. Then go out and buy a bolt gun in .308 or .300 WinMag. Just an opinion.


----------



## hacon1 (Feb 4, 2008)

.308 is definatly the way to go.

Texican, I wouldn't suggest the Cetme. I have yet to know someone who has had one that didn't end up very unhappy before it was all said and done. The Imbel is a better choice than the Cetme, IMHO.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

gideonprime said:


> The AR15 is CARP. Have never liked the way it handles or shoots. The acuaracy leaves something to be desired IMO.
> 
> The Sprinfield is the way I'd go. Better weapon, better track record and deadly acurate.
> 
> JMO.


The Springfield is NOT "more accurate" than the AR 15.

Both are very capable of less than 1 MOA grouping.


----------



## Texas_Plainsman (Aug 26, 2007)

Actually... NOT. They can't get enough M-14s over to Afghanistan. Any distance at all pretty much neuters an AR.



FourDeuce said:


> "The M16, and by proxy the HBAR, is a universally unloved piece of equipment."
> 
> Must be the BillClinton meaning of "universal", since I know LOTS of people who love them well enough to own several of them. I have 2.
> The accuracy of the RIFLE is fine out to 300 meters and more. The rifle and the round have been the MAIN battle rifle of the US and some other countries for over 40 years. There are a few good reasons for that.
> ...


----------



## reluctantpatriot (Mar 9, 2003)

Honestly, I can say there are drawbacks to every firearm, though given that both the M14 and M16 pattern arms, as well as the FN-FAL, AK-47, SKS and others served well in their respective time periods, I think they all are good choices.

I will point out that even restricting distance to 100 yards and not caring about weight, I would still stick with the M1A as it will put down deer, or human, with more certainty than a AR-15 without having to be a 100% perfect shot. While I could wait for the perfect shot to take down a deer with a 5.56x45mm, I have more options with a 7.62x51mm and I have better penetration on less than ideal shots.

All firearms have their nooks and crannies that fill with gunk. All guns need proper care to properly operate though some may be able to take on more than others before they cannot continue.

I am familiar with quite a few firearm designs, as I need to be as a gunsmith, and I can see pros and cons for them all. I have my preferences based on what I see as practical.

I do not dislike AR-15s, but I would select an upper of a larger caliber were I to use one for self-defense and hunting. I prefer something of 7.62x39mm through 7.62x51mm as a better choice.


----------



## Ross (May 9, 2002)

Never had either one but I did have a mini 14. Personally I just like the action and weight, I just wished it was either a Garand or like the Springfield in that they chamber something heavier than a .223. The only tid bit I can add is the mini 14 (and I assume the Springfield) needed a special scope mount to co-ordinate ejecting the spent case. Wish I could remember the maker for ya but it was a few years ago. It was actually nicer to shoot with the factory sights in that they line up very quickly.


----------



## Michael Kawalek (Jun 21, 2007)

Ross said:


> The only tid bit I can add is the mini 14 (and I assume the Springfield) needed a special scope mount to co-ordinate ejecting the spent case.


You can get the ranch rifle with integral scope mounts. Brass ejects under the scope tube just fine. You don't need the funny hanging mount the M1 uses. You can also get 20 or 30 round mags for it. And yes, you can hit a tin can with it if you are only looking 100 yards out. I do wish that Ruger would chamber it in .308 or something else substantial.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

Even if you plan to stay at home, weight can be a factor. If you need to move around at all, the weight difference between the .223 and .308 can make a big difference in how much ammo you can carry around with you. If you move from one spot to another(and you SHOULD plan for at least the possibility of doing that), you need to be able to carry everything you need with you.
I don't know how much they cost right now, but I bought my second one about a year ago for $800.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

Ernie said:


> Glad you like yours. I'm not a fan though. For fun, you might drop down to the veteran's forum and ask those guys how much they love the M16 though. Safer online than doing it down at the local VFW on a Friday night.


I've already talked to hundreds of veterans who've carried them, and I have my own experience to help me too. In 15 years active duty I handled quite a few of them, including 2 years at Infantry Officer's Basic Course, where I was the ammo/weapon NCO for my company.
From what I've seen online, the majority of people who don't like the AR have had little to no experience with it. Many people just recycle the old argument that it's not reliable that they heard somebody else say.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

Texas_Plainsman said:


> Actually... NOT. They can't get enough M-14s over to Afghanistan. Any distance at all pretty much neuters an AR.


I'm not sure what the actually...NOT was referring to, but I know the AR is accurate enough to hit 100% of the time out to 300 meters. I also know the round has enough power to do damage at least 220 meters away, from personal testing on metal plates at that distance.


----------



## vezoo (Nov 22, 2008)

does no one like the 22-250 round? or am I starting trouble?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

vezoo said:


> does no one like the 22-250 round? or am I starting trouble?



It's a wonderful round, but only comes in bolt actions as far as I know


----------



## vezoo (Nov 22, 2008)

I beleive you are right, but when I here "tatical" I think sniper, or placed shot, which I love bolt actions for that.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

vezoo said:


> I beleive you are right, but when I here "tatical" I think sniper, or placed shot, which I love bolt actions for that.


I prefer bolt guns for most things myself, but if you need more than a 223, it's probably better to go with a heavier bullet to reduce wind drift and retain more energy at longer ranges.
The 22-250 just shoots a little flatter and hits a little harder than the 223, but it's not a huge leap in power


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

FourDeuce said:


> I've already talked to hundreds of veterans who've carried them, and I have my own experience to help me too. In 15 years active duty I handled quite a few of them, including 2 years at Infantry Officer's Basic Course, where I was the ammo/weapon NCO for my company.
> From what I've seen online, the majority of people who don't like the AR have had little to no experience with it. Many people just recycle the old argument that it's not reliable that they heard somebody else say.


Good on you, brother. I'm not downing your love of the rifle. I'm just stating why _I_ don't like them. You keep right on keeping on if it makes you happy.


----------



## swamp man (Dec 25, 2005)

Lotsa' good inights here. Lotsa' "which firearm is better", too.
Which is better to eat your dinner with?....a fork or a spoon? Kinda' depends, don't it?
I've owned about ever rifle that's been discussed here, and operated the ones I haven't oned. They're all good, but in different situations, with the situation in question being Cabin Fever and WIHH's.
So, looking at it objectively and taking into consideration what we know...
1. We're hipped to their arsenal, and it lacks a long-range, heavy-hitting autoloader. 
The .308 they're interested in fills that void nicely.

2. Having seen pics of their place (which is beautiful), at least some of it appears to be heavily wooded, as is mine.
It doesn't take much of a tree to stop a .223 bullet in it's tracks...it just ain't gonna' pass through even a smallish tree. The .308 (especially with the typical surplus FMJ spitzer) will slide right through a fairly sizeable tree with ease, and give the bad guy who's using it for cover some serious problems. The ability to take safe cover behind any of the eleventy-billion trees that surround my home ain't a luxury I care to give my adversary, not to mention the .308's superior ability to incapacitate a marauding vehicle.
...put the .308 on the scoreboard agin.

3. We know they're bugger-inners, making weight of the firearm and ammunition much less of an issue. As for availability of common calibers, yep, our military uses the .223, but I find counting on the fact that we'll all be running around picking up as much ammo as we need offa' dead guys kinda' ridiculous. Maybe it'll happen, but right now, I see it as more doomer porn.
....a swing and a miss for the .223.

From where I'm standing, the .308 is a no-brainer.

CF and WIHH, if y'all haven't already, have a look at the FN FAL. It's heavy as can be, but built like a tank, accurate, and quite reliable. In y'all's situation, it would be my first choice in .308.

As a side note, someone mentioned the integral scope mounts offered as an option on the mini-14. I had those on my stainless mini-30, and it's by far the strongest optics mounting design I've ever used. You'd about have to beat that thing with a baseball bat to knock it out of zero.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

I don't particularly "love" the rifle. It's a tool and it does the job I need it to do. That's why I trust it with my life. It's the same reason I don't pick up an 8-pound sledge hammer when I need to drive some tacks.
I see it often on message boards online, people comparing the .223 and the .308 rounds as if there was a need to. I don't need to compare the two rounds to each other. I compare the rounds to the jobs I need done. If the .223 does the jobs, I use it. If it doesn't, I find something that does. That's the bottom line for me.


----------



## WindowOrMirror (Jan 10, 2005)

FourDeuce said:


> "The M16, and by proxy the HBAR, is a universally unloved piece of equipment."
> 
> Must be the BillClinton meaning of "universal", since I know LOTS of people who love them well enough to own several of them. I have 2.
> The accuracy of the RIFLE is fine out to 300 meters and more. The rifle and the round have been the MAIN battle rifle of the US and some other countries for over 40 years. There are a few good reasons for that.
> ...


As far as your glowing report goes, you are 100% correct. The AR is crazy accurate... so's a .25-06 but I ain't huntin' men with it.

Don't get me started on the politics that made the M-16 the Army standard, but suffice it to say that - from the warfighters perspective - it came down to the fact that most soldiers couldn't shoot. You can carry more rounds of .223 than .308, straight up.

.308 makes a bigger hole, has more knock-down power, and if a motivated fighter gets hit in any major limb with the .308 they are down and out... not true for the .223.

If you want perspective on the difference, don't listen to the sanitized perspective of current warfighters... talk to a fellow that carried both _*and shot both at the enemy*_ and ask him what he thinks.

now... the rifle a person should choose is the one they can HIT things with. If you can't with the '14 and you can with the AR... get an AR and enjoy it... but keep her clean (it's hard 'cause she craps where she eats)

R


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

I'll confess that I can't shoot very well either, particularly when I'm hiding behind something trying not to get shot. Maybe that's why I like shotguns. I can shoot well enough if I can take my time and center on a target without stress, like say a deer in a meadow on a warm morning. Anything else and I was just much more concerned with not taking one in the face (or in the back of the head from some schmuck behind me who THINKS he can shoot).

I share that in the hopes that some other non-marksmen like me will feel my pain at being the lowest ranked member of a shooting communitty.


----------



## Chuck R. (Apr 24, 2008)

Just for the sake of conversation here's a an excerpt from an article written and published in Infantry Magazine a while back:



> Interestingly, the one 7.62mm round that received the full evaluation, the M80 fired from the M14 rifle, performed in the same band of
> performance, which would indicate that for M80 ammunition at
> least there appears to be no benefit to the larger caliber at close
> quarters range.


The title is: âSmall Caliber Lethality: 5.56MM performance in close quarters battle.â

It can be found here: http://wstiac.alionscience.com/pdf/WQV8N1_ART01.pdf

It's due to the smaller calibers fragmentation whereas the stout 7.62mm tends to hold together. 

Here's another study completed in DEC 2006 called the "Soldier Perspectives on Small Arms in Combat" where the M4 received a 89% favorable rating form the soldiers that used it. One very good aspect of the survey is that it was completed by soldiers that had used the weapon in combat.



> CNA conducted over 2,600 surveys with soldiers who had returned
> from Iraq or Afghanistan within the previous 12 months and had
> engaged in a firefight using the M9, M4, M16 (A2 or A4), or M249
> during their last deployment. The survey covered key issues related
> ...


It can be found here:

http://images.military.com/pix/defensetech/cna_m4_study_d0015259_a2.pdf

I used to work for the "Center for Army Lessons Learned" (still do, but tomorrow's my last day) and am a pretty good friend with one of the guys that works small arms/weapons stuff. I saw both of these when they came out, but now that they're "open source" there's no problem sharing......

Chuck


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

Good links. From the reading, it looks like a lot of my complaints about the M16 were addressed in the M4. I never got my hands on one of those, unfortunately.

The M16 had only a 60/40 rating in favor of while the M4 was 90/10. So which model is the HBAR CF mentioned based on?


----------



## logbuilder (Jan 31, 2006)

Cabin,

I visit a forum called frugalsquirrels.com

They have a very active firearm section. You would do well to check it out. I'm pretty sure you have to register to view. I have been a member for several years and recommend it highly. There are also sections dealing with preparedness, much like here.

logbuilder


----------



## WindowOrMirror (Jan 10, 2005)

Frugal's is the thing boy...


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

WindowOrMirror said:


> As far as your glowing report goes, you are 100% correct. The AR is crazy accurate... so's a .25-06 but I ain't huntin' men with it.
> 
> Your choice. The AR platform has been used for hunting men for more than 40 years, with pretty good results.
> 
> ...


I didn't notice before. How much personal experience have you had with the AR? I mean hands-on time.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

I personally have had very little. Not as much as some of you. But I learned to hate it very quickly. First time they made me wear it on a stinkin' sling and I nearly strangled myself when I fell backwards out of a window I was trying to climb through. I have a confession to make .... I wasn't the world's most competent soldier. I make a better farmer. 

Based on the links provided by the other guy, I think the M4 might be a suitable weapon, but I still wouldn't take an M16. And I'll take my 1898 Mauser over either one of them. I don't intend on getting in a Fallujah-style throwdown with the zombie horde over a couple of cases of baked beans. I don't need to lay down suppression fire or achieve penetration through the hull of a BMP. I need to sometimes shoot coyotes and maybe, occasionally, shoot some misguided fool trying to climb through my basement window because he peeks through the window and can't tell a tomato plant from cannabis under a grow light. If the time comes I need better weapons, I can get them utilizing what I've already got. When France surrendered to Germany in WW2, the French Resistance had a few rusty hunting rifles and leftover WW1 pistols. By the time the Americans landed in Normandy and started linking up with the resistance to push the Germans back out, they found the French Resistance was well armed and equipped with the best weapons that Germany had ever produced.


----------



## denaliguide (Aug 30, 2008)

How much money you want to blow on a tac rifle, that can mask as a good ole boy gun would be my question. The two that come to mind, are the Mini-14, which has any number of mods out there. To turn it into a full defense weapon, I'd use the bullpup config. Second is the SKS, with a Chicom 20 Rd Internal. It is so fast with stripper clips that you want want a mag to change. If you could get it in a BullPup Config I'd take it, over a
Mini 14. Why ? Because the design is combat proved from Belin 1945 to Vietnam and on to Central America. Polar to tropics. A good caliber, applicable to hunting and low recoil enuf to make women and children dangerous. My experience with the SK in Alaska, makes it flawless IMO, and it is both maintainable and lo-maintenance at that. Obviously LT storage ammo is freely available esp with the sligthly corrosive primers.
Some excellent ballistic coefficient bullets are available making it up to a 250 yd gun for lung shorts on game up to moose. For those of us who know the gun is more accurate than we are, this is a good thing. For those of us with '98 Mausers in the orig 8MM or '06, well, its a Tac Rifle, not a bench gun.
LAST, if you MUST have a wee bit more range with the SKS, start experimenting with the 30 CAL Accelorator Plastic Inserts that handle the .224 boattail bullets. Since the 30/30 Accelorator got about 3000 FPS out of that .224 slug, I am guessing a handloader with the right data to start experimenting could get within 5% of that before he really got good with it.
I do not know what range increase you could get, but I bet your target would get very surprised with the range increase if they thought they were staying out of 7.62 X 39 MM range. I would not advertise that I had these loads, if I indeed developed them, but you can bet a couple hundred would be part of my "ACE-IN-THE-HOLE" gear that I'd have at hand if I felt I needed about 50-60 extra yards of range to defend what was near and dear to me.

Seems to me, either the Mini-14 or SK, would be excellent choices, probably low on siezure lists. I have had a Mini-30, and good as it is, I found it clunky, and I liked the way my SK handled better, but again thats personal.

There are MANY MANY good choices out there, but for me, the AR look alikes arenet for me. I carried an M-14, and I'd use one in this role, but I'd rather have the SK.

For my sniper rifle, concealed as a civilian gun, I'd probably have a .270 in a '98 Mauser, with a serious scope and sling. If I could have anything I'd have a Swede Mauser in 1894 Husquarvana, with the 28" original factory barrel. Problem is the steel in the Swede is HARD and takes some one who knows how to drill the mounts. It is pretty hell with the iron sights tho.
With the Swede I could hit the melons at 200 yds consistently.

Good Luck, Ya'll

DG




Ernie said:


> I personally have had very little. Not as much as some of you. But I learned to hate it very quickly. First time they made me wear it on a stinkin' sling and I nearly strangled myself when I fell backwards out of a window I was trying to climb through. I have a confession to make .... I wasn't the world's most competent soldier. I make a better farmer.
> 
> Based on the links provided by the other guy, I think the M4 might be a suitable weapon, but I still wouldn't take an M16. And I'll take my 1898 Mauser over either one of them. I don't intend on getting in a Fallujah-style throwdown with the zombie horde over a couple of cases of baked beans. I don't need to lay down suppression fire or achieve penetration through the hull of a BMP. I need to sometimes shoot coyotes and maybe, occasionally, shoot some misguided fool trying to climb through my basement window because he peeks through the window and can't tell a tomato plant from cannabis under a grow light. If the time comes I need better weapons, I can get them utilizing what I've already got. When France surrendered to Germany in WW2, the French Resistance had a few rusty hunting rifles and leftover WW1 pistols. By the time the Americans landed in Normandy and started linking up with the resistance to push the Germans back out, they found the French Resistance was well armed and equipped with the best weapons that Germany had ever produced.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

love my sks.

It was a good investment too, it seems prices have skyrocketed.


----------



## mtman (Sep 2, 2004)

those that dont like the colt ar15 a1 spend alittle more money get the one that has the stamp for millatary and law enfoecment only you will be happeir


----------



## Farmerwilly2 (Oct 14, 2006)

I'd sell you one of my Garrands, but I'm greedy that way. What I need is a good 1911.


----------



## denaliguide (Aug 30, 2008)

investment mediums I have had, since A/ I have never lost a dime on them ;

B/ After they have served me, the ones I have sold, always have sold for way more than I had in them, even inflation adjusted. Ammo not so, but that is always great for barter.

DG




seedspreader said:


> love my sks.
> 
> It was a good investment too, it seems prices have skyrocketed.


----------



## countrymech (Nov 28, 2005)

It surprised me to see the Mini-14 discussed in this topic. Don't get me wrong, I have a stainless "Ranch" model in my gun cabinet, but I would not consider it a 'Tactical Rifle'. I like the way it handles and it makes a great coyote rifle but it is not suitable for "High Stress" situations. IMHO, the Achilles heel of the Mini-14 is in the magazine latch and the rocking motion required to seat the magazine. It is very possible to render a magazine useless if one tries to insert the mag while not properly centered on the retaining pin. I have dimpled enough magazines at the range to realize that I do not want to trust my life to it in a "High Stress" situation. In my opinion it is just to finiky and delicate to be 'Tactical'. I still keep it around because it may come in handy for a 'Rear Guard' type of situation but it will never be my weapon of choice. Just an opinion.


----------



## reluctantpatriot (Mar 9, 2003)

I think this topic is broad and full of both fact and opinion. Both cartridges have their benefits and drawbacks just as their delivery platforms do as well.

My philosophy for picking what I do is on the one round per target bias over keep firing until you get the results you want. Unlike law enforcement and the military we more than likely will be on our own with no easy ability to obtain backup or resupply. That is why I tend toward the heavier cartridge and its requisite firearm designs.

Some designs are more resilient than others, but I highly doubt that those same conditions will come into play for most of us. Even hunters who often hunt in wide weather and environmental extremes do rather well with sporting grade designs.

Unless one buys a gas piston model AR-15, the original design does blow debris into the action which if not kept clean will lock up or cease to function as desired. The gas piston design of the M1A will function longer without cleaning though it will still require regular upkeep. About the only design I would call reliable for the long term without cleaning is the AK pattern, but with that you trade off some accuracy for reliability.

For me I prefer a deer caliber firearm that does not require that I take only idea shots for the bullet to be effective. The weight for me does not matter as much because it helps me steady shots when I have to shoot without a rest or the ability to sling up. Both firearms can be accurate, but there is a big difference between shooting range conditions accurate at whatever distance and field accuracy under less than idea conditions. Even the AK pattern arms, when used by someone who knows how to shoot, can be used to great effect. 

I am not saying that either platform is bad, but there is quite a bit of information to consider and I can only give my opinions on the matter.

I will say this though, the LEO only models are no better than the unstamped models. They may have certain rollmarks so they can be distinguished, but they are no different than one without that rollmark. The best thing that you can do is pick a manufacturer who has the model configuration you want, take it out to the range to break it in properly and get used to how it fits you and functions. If having what law enforcement officers or the military have is so important, perhaps you should wait until you can scavenge one from a fallen officer or soldier along with any other requisite equipment.

I prefer to side on the idea that I better have what I need now rather than try to scavenge it later.


----------



## mdharris68 (Sep 28, 2006)

Can any one of you with an FN-FAL (or experience with one) give me some pointers as to what things to look for when purchasing one? That is my gun of choice and I know I am picking the wrong time to buy one, but it's something I've always wanted. Thanks for any help.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly (Aug 13, 2004)

SKS..designed for reliable fire under different adverse conditions. Simple design, simple breakdown. You can abuse it and still use it. Ammo is cheap and plenty....Get the Yugo with the built in Grenade launcher..ya never know.


----------



## Chuck R. (Apr 24, 2008)

mdharris68 said:


> Can any one of you with an FN-FAL (or experience with one) give me some pointers as to what things to look for when purchasing one? That is my gun of choice and I know I am picking the wrong time to buy one, but it's something I've always wanted. Thanks for any help.



I've got a DSA SA58 "Para" (folding stock), that has been 100%, great rifle reasonably accurate, and with the folding stock pretty portable. Unfortunately DSA SA58s run about $1650 for a standard to $1900 for a "Para". It is a FAL built with new parts, not a surplus parts kit like most of the ones you'll find. You can get one a little cheaper by finding a FFL to do a transfer and ordering it direct from DSA. 

DSA also sells Austrian STGs, which are rifles built with new US barrels (Badgers) on new DSA receivers using surplus parts kits that DSA imported. They run around $1150 for a standard and $1400 for a para. It really is a good way to get a reasonably priced FAL as the folks at DSA really know what they're doing and the rifle will run right.

Another choice is to join the FALfiles: 

http://www.falfiles.com/forums/index.php

and keep your eye open for a well built rifle on a quality receiver. Sometimes some pretty good deals can be found. It's a great site to learn the ins/outs of FALs.

I have ZERO experience with Century built guns, but have read that they can be either hit or miss. The good thing about a FAL is that it can be put right pretty easily as long as nothing terrible has been done to the receiver.

Chuck


----------



## Chuck R. (Apr 24, 2008)

reluctantpatriot said:


> I will say this though, the LEO only models are no better than the unstamped models. They may have certain rollmarks so they can be distinguished, but they are no different than one without that rollmark.


Actually, the Colt LE marked guns are "different" in that they're made by Colt Defense on the same tooling etc. as their military rifles. The LE6920s for instance are produced in batches in between runs of contract rifles which explains their occasional rarity and price increases. They generally also follow the Department of Defense TDP and are built to pretty much the same standards, and are tested the same as the military versions. 

Chuck


----------



## mdharris68 (Sep 28, 2006)

Chuck, thanks for the info and the link. I will do some more research. I am trying to get one bought in case there would be a total ban. I think the one that I wanted in the 90's had a folding stock and I regret not bying it then when I had my ffl. I would have got it close to wholesale, but I remember it being about 1100 to 1500 back then for one with all orig parts. What does DSA stand for? Thanks, Mark


----------



## Chuck R. (Apr 24, 2008)

mdharris68 said:


> Chuck, thanks for the info and the link. I will do some more research. I am trying to get one bought in case there would be a total ban. I think the one that I wanted in the 90's had a folding stock and I regret not bying it then when I had my ffl. I would have got it close to wholesale, but I remember it being about 1100 to 1500 back then for one with all orig parts. What does DSA stand for? Thanks, Mark


Mark,

DSA stands for DS Arms:

http://www.dsarms.com/

Great source for FAL parts, mags etc. Prices like all prices have gone up. As the surplus kits dried up the prices for "kit guns" also went way up compared to just a few years ago. 

One good aspect to the SA58s are that they're made on the lightweight lower, so you get some weight savings over the STGs or surplus guns with the steel lower. 

Chuck


----------



## OldGrouch (Jan 23, 2008)

hacon1 said:


> .308 is definatly the way to go.
> 
> Texican, I wouldn't suggest the Cetme. I have yet to know someone who has had one that didn't end up very unhappy before it was all said and done. The Imbel is a better choice than the Cetme, IMHO.


Not challenging, just wondering why... Never had a Fail to feed or fire (2000 plus rounds of Wolf thru it) with my CETME? Would like a PTR-91 though

--Dwight


----------



## reluctantpatriot (Mar 9, 2003)

Chuck R. said:


> Actually, the Colt LE marked guns are "different" in that they're made by Colt Defense on the same tooling etc. as their military rifles. The LE6920s for instance are produced in batches in between runs of contract rifles which explains their occasional rarity and price increases. They generally also follow the Department of Defense TDP and are built to pretty much the same standards, and are tested the same as the military versions.
> 
> Chuck


So you have a military tested grade firearm, minus the burst option. That I understand. So what you are saying is that any AR-15 that does not have this certification is not worth buying?

I have firearms that were produced before such standards existed and yet they still continue to work just fine without failures. 

I am not a manufacturer snob, and for most AR-15 users Colt is not one of the preferred manufacturers for anything. DPMS and Bushmater, and perhaps now Sabre Defense and LMT Company would be on the preferred list.


----------



## reluctantpatriot (Mar 9, 2003)

mdharris68 said:


> Can any one of you with an FN-FAL (or experience with one) give me some pointers as to what things to look for when purchasing one? That is my gun of choice and I know I am picking the wrong time to buy one, but it's something I've always wanted. Thanks for any help.


If you are looking for a parts kit gun look for one made on an Imbel receiver and Stg-58 parts kit or a L1A1 parts kit if you prefer the British inch pattern over the Stg-58 metric. I prefer the metric because even the inch pattern magazines will fit it but not the other way around. I do not trust anything from a parts kit that was not made on an Imbel receiver.

If you are looking for new, DS Arms does make quality product. I do not recommend an Enterprise Arms product unless you want quality control issues and possible failures of parts.


----------



## Chuck R. (Apr 24, 2008)

reluctantpatriot said:


> So you have a military tested grade firearm, minus the burst option. That I understand. So what you are saying is that any AR-15 that does not have this certification is not worth buying?
> 
> I have firearms that were produced before such standards existed and yet they still continue to work just fine without failures.
> 
> I am not a manufacturer snob, and for most AR-15 users Colt is not one of the preferred manufacturers for anything. DPMS and Bushmater, and perhaps now Sabre Defense and LMT Company would be on the preferred list.


I don't believe I ever said that an AR that didn't have the "certification" wasn't worth buying. What I said was that some ARs are built to the same specifications that are required by the military while others are not. It's really that simple.

For an awful lot of folks DPMS and Bushmaster are not considered to be "tier One" manufacturers. Iâll refer once again to âthe chartâ which was put together by a whole bunch of smart folks over at M4Carbine.net. The chart doesnât show which guns are reliable, but it does show which guns are built closer to the Technical Data Package as specified by the US Government. 










As you can see, Saber Defense, and Bushmaster either skip or omit some features/testing that the USG specifies. As a mater of fact IAW the chart, Bushmaster does no testing of either their barrels nor bolts. 

Itâs not a question of being a manufacturer âsnobâ itâs a question of wanting an AR built to the same specs as the USG requires. If certain features donât interest you, or you donât value some of the testing done, then itâs up to you. 

But it makes it pretty hard to say that gun A is âjust as good asâ gun B, when gun Aâs manufacturer doesnât test their rifles to the same standard, uses an inferior barrel steel, or canât even stake a gas key properly.

Chuck


----------



## Cabin Fever (May 10, 2002)

I'd like to thank all of you who have helped with your comments and experience. And for those of you who wrote posts that were lost a week ago...don't worry, I read those too before they disappeared.

I have made a decision. I decided on the Springfield M1A in either the Scout Squad or SOCOM model. Now all I have to do is find one at a decent price!

One more question. I've noticed that a M1A commands a premium price if it was built "before ban." What is the difference between a current produced M1A and one produced "pre ban"? Wouldn't it just be the capacity of the magazine that was originally sold with the rifle?


----------



## reluctantpatriot (Mar 9, 2003)

Cabin Fever said:


> I'd like to thank all of you who have helped with your comments and experience. And for those of you who wrote posts that were lost a week ago...don't worry, I read those too before they disappeared.
> 
> I have made a decision. I decided on the Springfield M1A in either the Scout Squad or SOCOM model. Now all I have to do is find one at a decent price!
> 
> One more question. I've noticed that a M1A commands a premium price if it was built "before ban." What is the difference between a current produced M1A and one produced "pre ban"? Wouldn't it just be the capacity of the magazine that was originally sold with the rifle?


Part of it is that the pre-ban had a bayonet lug on the flash suppressor.

If you look around you might find a replacement available from Brownells or even Fulton Armory, which does build the M1A style rifles with the bayonet lug.


----------

