|
I have been a proponent of the .308 for a long time. When it came time to actually put money down, I bought a modern battle rifle - the HK91. That was in the '70's. I don't doubt the ability of a decent shooter to use one in defense of home, or out hunting. It knocks down game.
It's sized accordingly. Having shot the M1A, I can't say it improved on the negatives. .30 cal rifles are long, heavy, have signficant recoil, and are relatively more expensive to shoot, reload, and use. You can't carry as much ammunition, and the magazines are sized accordingly. Older designs dating from the .30's aren't efficient in packaging the components or offering inhererent accuracy - primarily because the receiver holds the barrel and bolt locking lugs. That makes them heavier regardless of the caliber.
The AR avoids that, as it is much more efficiently designed. The question is whether to stick with 5.56 because of doubts about it's power. I agree.
Therefore, keep the AR, fit it with a different caliber upper for hunting and home defense - which should be a cheaper solution. You also train on the same platform with cheap 5.56, or even a .22 conversion. Training will be more effective more quickly than dividing time between two different platforms.
The AR is more user friendly, offers better utility in real combat, and still reaches out effectively to the actual max range most combat takes place in urban and wooded situations, about 400 yards - what the German General Staff discovered in WWII. The US Army hasn't disputed those findings yet.
I sold my HK91, and I building an AR in 6.8SPC. A time proven platform in use over decades, and a caliber designed by battle veterans for shooters by marksmen - Special Forces and the AMU - to improve power, effectiveness, and still fit the envelope of the AR. It's the best of both.
|