Semi-auto caliber question

ks_shooter · December 20, 2001, 05:41 PM

I own a bolt action .243 and have an interest in buying a semi-auto for fun shooting and potentially more serious needs (and because I just WANT one, especially before they get banned completely). I have seen lots of threads debating the merits of the .223 vs .308. I think that I have a decent understanding of the trade-offs between the two calibers in terms of ballistics. What I am wondering is if a semi-auto .308 makes sense in most situtations. I not trying to be a smart ass or start a never-ending hate thread. But it seems to me that a lot of people agree that the various .223 rifles are quicker on target (being lighter, usually) and quicker on follow up shots (lighter recoil) and have adequate stopping power on human targets at ranges under 100~150 yards. The .308 on the other hand offers better long range performance, but is more of a handful in close rapid fire. But if you are engaging targets at 200+ yards are you really going to be pulling the trigger that fast? I mean it will take some aiming to hit a target at that range especially if you are using iron sights. Also the recoil would seem to preclude rapid aimed fire. Wouldn't a bolt-gun work about as well for hitting long range targets? Wouldn't a basic battery be well stocked if somebody had a .223 semi-auto and a .308 bolt gun? Where does a .308 semi-auto fit into the picture? I honestly want to hear from people who disagree with me. I am trying to decide between a VEPR II .308 and a Armalite AR-180B. About the same money. Both should be reliable. Right now I am leanig towards the Armalite. Tomorrow? Who knows.

James K · December 20, 2001, 06:26 PM

I don't think bolt guns have any lock on accuracy any more, at least not in practical terms. Both a match M14 and a match M16 will shoot right along with some darn good bolt guns, though they might lose that accuracy faster if subjected to really rough handling.

As for field trips, like hunting, you can own as many rifles as you want, but unless you have a train of gun bearers you can only carry one. That is when you have to choose.

Jim

Destructo6 · December 20, 2001, 06:32 PM

If you had both a .223 (7.62x39 even) and .308 rifles, you'd be set for just about anything I could think of.

For .308, I'd go with a FAL over a AR-10. The AR-10 is a beautiful rifle, but the price differential takes it out of the running in my mind. A buddy of mine was able to keep 20 rapid fire rounds, from my FAL on the factory bipod, in a six by eight foot oval at around 200 yards. That day was the first time he'd fired it, and had no problems repeating the act, over and over again (my gun, my ammo).

For an intermediate powered rifle, you probably have considered an AR. You might also look at Aks. Some people love one and hate the other, but you rarely know for sure until you try. I like both for different reasons.

gryphon · December 20, 2001, 06:42 PM

I have a FAL and have no problem making rapid shots with it. It definitely gives you more of a felt recoil, but nothing that puts me that far off target that a good follow up shot isn't seconds away if needed.

It is a touch long - somewhere around 42", but it tickles my fancy. Pricewise, you can find a good FAL for $500 or less if you look around. The mechanics of the FAL or very simple, so reliability is almost a given. It's definitely worth a look. If you find that the FAL gives you the warm fuzzy, also look at the M1A/M14 if money is no object.

Traintrackker · December 21, 2001, 01:04 AM

Going back to original question...Having owned rifles in 5.56, 7.62x39, and .308 Winchester, it's all up to you and what you want to do with it...No, I'm not trying to cop out on you, but each caliber brings different things to the table...If reliability is key along with short to medium range shots, then your 5.56 or 7.62x39 will serve you well. Both are also cheaper to shoot and maintain than most .308's. If, however, long range work, the ability to defeat certain materials, and the ability to take most North American game are requirements, then you will be well served by the .308. Of the guns you mentioned, I'd give the nod to the VEPR II in .308. First off, the gun is based on the tried and true AK system. You can't get better than that for ease of maintenance, reliability, and battle proven credentials. I use to own a VEPR (the old model) and I can tell you, I wish I had it back. It was accurate, reliable, and handy to operate with the 16" barrel I had. Whatever your choice, weigh your options, check into the weapon you select (pro's/con's/cost/etc), and enjoy it, once you get it. traintrackker

December 20, 2001, 05:41 PM	#1
ks_shooter Member Join Date: April 23, 2001 Location: Kansas City Posts: 90	Semi-auto caliber question I own a bolt action .243 and have an interest in buying a semi-auto for fun shooting and potentially more serious needs (and because I just WANT one, especially before they get banned completely). I have seen lots of threads debating the merits of the .223 vs .308. I think that I have a decent understanding of the trade-offs between the two calibers in terms of ballistics. What I am wondering is if a semi-auto .308 makes sense in most situtations. I not trying to be a smart ass or start a never-ending hate thread. But it seems to me that a lot of people agree that the various .223 rifles are quicker on target (being lighter, usually) and quicker on follow up shots (lighter recoil) and have adequate stopping power on human targets at ranges under 100~150 yards. The .308 on the other hand offers better long range performance, but is more of a handful in close rapid fire. But if you are engaging targets at 200+ yards are you really going to be pulling the trigger that fast? I mean it will take some aiming to hit a target at that range especially if you are using iron sights. Also the recoil would seem to preclude rapid aimed fire. Wouldn't a bolt-gun work about as well for hitting long range targets? Wouldn't a basic battery be well stocked if somebody had a .223 semi-auto and a .308 bolt gun? Where does a .308 semi-auto fit into the picture? I honestly want to hear from people who disagree with me. I am trying to decide between a VEPR II .308 and a Armalite AR-180B. About the same money. Both should be reliable. Right now I am leanig towards the Armalite. Tomorrow? Who knows. __________________ Ks_Shooter Aim Small, Miss Small

December 20, 2001, 06:42 PM	#4
gryphon Senior Member Join Date: November 21, 2000 Location: Ohio Posts: 1,069	I have a FAL and have no problem making rapid shots with it. It definitely gives you more of a felt recoil, but nothing that puts me that far off target that a good follow up shot isn't seconds away if needed. It is a touch long - somewhere around 42", but it tickles my fancy. Pricewise, you can find a good FAL for $500 or less if you look around. The mechanics of the FAL or very simple, so reliability is almost a given. It's definitely worth a look. If you find that the FAL gives you the warm fuzzy, also look at the M1A/M14 if money is no object. __________________ Your suffering will be legendary, even in HELL!! --- PinHead, HellRaiser 2

December 20, 2001, 06:26 PM	#2
James K Member In Memoriam Join Date: March 17, 1999 Posts: 24,383	I don't think bolt guns have any lock on accuracy any more, at least not in practical terms. Both a match M14 and a match M16 will shoot right along with some darn good bolt guns, though they might lose that accuracy faster if subjected to really rough handling. As for field trips, like hunting, you can own as many rifles as you want, but unless you have a train of gun bearers you can only carry one. That is when you have to choose. Jim

December 20, 2001, 06:32 PM	#3
Destructo6 Senior Member Join Date: March 18, 1999 Location: Nogales, AZ USA Posts: 4,001	If you had both a .223 (7.62x39 even) and .308 rifles, you'd be set for just about anything I could think of. For .308, I'd go with a FAL over a AR-10. The AR-10 is a beautiful rifle, but the price differential takes it out of the running in my mind. A buddy of mine was able to keep 20 rapid fire rounds, from my FAL on the factory bipod, in a six by eight foot oval at around 200 yards. That day was the first time he'd fired it, and had no problems repeating the act, over and over again (my gun, my ammo). For an intermediate powered rifle, you probably have considered an AR. You might also look at Aks. Some people love one and hate the other, but you rarely know for sure until you try. I like both for different reasons.

December 21, 2001, 01:04 AM	#5
Traintrackker Member Join Date: November 10, 2001 Posts: 15	Going back to original question...Having owned rifles in 5.56, 7.62x39, and .308 Winchester, it's all up to you and what you want to do with it...No, I'm not trying to cop out on you, but each caliber brings different things to the table...If reliability is key along with short to medium range shots, then your 5.56 or 7.62x39 will serve you well. Both are also cheaper to shoot and maintain than most .308's. If, however, long range work, the ability to defeat certain materials, and the ability to take most North American game are requirements, then you will be well served by the .308. Of the guns you mentioned, I'd give the nod to the VEPR II in .308. First off, the gun is based on the tried and true AK system. You can't get better than that for ease of maintenance, reliability, and battle proven credentials. I use to own a VEPR (the old model) and I can tell you, I wish I had it back. It was accurate, reliable, and handy to operate with the 16" barrel I had. Whatever your choice, weigh your options, check into the weapon you select (pro's/con's/cost/etc), and enjoy it, once you get it. traintrackker