.308 battle rifle purchase opinion

[TheDevilThatYouKnow]

Never had an M1A, but I did have a HK-91 and currently have a FrankenFAL/L1A1.

They were both reliable but the ergonomics on the FAL are years ahead of the HK. The HK selector lever requires orangutan thumbs to operate and there is absolutely no way to release the magazine with the strong hand still on the pistol grip. You can get a paddle release but it's not an inexpensive option.

On the FAL the selector is easy to get to but the Metric magazine release is small and as issued there is no bolt hold-back. Changing both to Inch standards is quick and inexpensive.

[davidsog]

The HK selector lever requires orangutan thumbs to operate and there is absolutely no way to release the magazine with the strong hand still on the pistol grip. You can get a paddle release but it's not an inexpensive option.

One of the best things PTR did was make that paddle release standard so the paddle release is free.

I agree on the selector switch. If you consider it was not designed to do up/down drills required for CQB but rather Infantry IMT or Infantry rifle at the ready carry.....it works great.

Infantry joes do not run around at the high/low ready or move in stacks. That is flashy CQB/SFARTEC and has it place but it not the norms.

They hump on patrol and the most common carry is the buttstock outside the arm.









Soldiers all over the world do it. It is just the most comfortable position for Joe to hold his bullet launcher all day long.



You can easily manipulate the G3 selector from that position. You cannot manipulate an M4/AR15 selector as easily UNTIL you get it on your shoulder.

That is the thinking behind the G3 selector position.

[44 AMP]

That is the thinking behind the G3 selector position.

I think you are overthinking it. European gun designers have a long standing school of thought that various controls (safety, mag release, etc.) are not needed to be operated with the shooting hand, in the firing grip position.

This goes back at least to the early mausers, and while there have been exceptions, the majority of European arms are designed that way. Americans today expect the controls to be at their fingertips with the hand in the firing position, and we build guns that work that way. Europeans (generally) don't.

I do cringe when someone says "orangutan thumbs", because, its simply wrong. Organgutans have very short thumbs, like the other apes. What you need to operate the HK selector lever is a thumb the length of an Orangutan's FINGERS...

One request, would you please explain (once, anyway) what it mean when you use terms like "CQB/SFARTEC", and the like. It would make your posts easier to understand for the readers who were never in modern infantry units, and don't know the current buzz words and acronyms. It would also help those of us who were in the service, but left long before soldiers became "operators", or what ever the buzz word is today...Thanks.

[jersurf101]

Some of your statements mirror my experience with the rifle David. Yet another drawback of the CETME was the fact that I could only shoot 150's with NATO brass without fear of case head separation. I agree that the rifle Century cobbled together was a poor example of the design but if we get into other manufacturers the price is up there with an M1A or more. Unlike an AR the receiver flat is bent and welded and the barrel pressed in leaving it very difficult to change one out. Over all I think if DRB rifles are not ergonomically friendly to shoot, front heavy in the extreme and they chew up the brass and spit it 60 yards. And God help you if the bolt gap is bad or there is a real problem with the rifle.

[ttarp]

That is why the PSG-1 has a reinforced receiver to shoot heavier match grade ammo used in NATO sniper systems.

Sorry to nit pick, you seem like you have a pretty decent knowledge of the G3 system, but where do you get this information? The purpose of the reinforcement rails on the PSG1 is simply to strengthen the receiver by reducing flex or torque, I don't see how it could have any significant bearing on bullet weight. If you have some source that proves otherwise I'd be happy for the learning experience.

[stagpanther]

and they chew up the brass and spit it 60 yards

Forgot about that..I did see cases get spit out maybe 20 yds--very long way for sure--but not 60.

[davidsog]

I think you are overthinking it. European gun designers have a long standing school of thought that various controls (safety, mag release, etc.) are not needed to be operated with the shooting hand, in the firing grip position.

You are correct in the European designers thinking. I am not overthinking it and that is the reason for the selector switch location on the rifle.

It is in a perfect position for how soldiers practically use their weapons.

It is also in keeping with the thinking that a weapon need not be operated from the shooting position as you should be shooting when you get there NOT manipulating the weapon off safe. The thinking being, "What is the point of getting into a shooting position if you are not going to shoot".

The magazine position is set with the European thinking that soldiers will retain their magazines. Post World War II in the dawn of ergonomics in weapon design when the CETME was introduced for some reason it was feared that making the magazine to easy to release would result in magazines being released when they were not intended to be released.

Once more, they want the soldier to have to grab his magazine and physically hold onto it until he put back in his pouch, shirt, or where ever he placed it to keep it for later reloading. That works just fine for a infantryman as he is not fighting alone. "Cover me buddy - changing magazines"...

The button magazine release was awkward and when the G3 was adopted for military service a european style paddle magazine release was standard. Do not judge the system based upon experience with a Century Arms CETME. That is like judging the AR series based upon an Army Logistical Board decision to used surplus powder left in the inventory for the cartridges.

The paddle release removal from the HK91 series was a US BATF requirement for import weapons and worked well. Service G3's have a different lower receiver with an extra breakdown pin. That pin secures the full auto sear and is also the pivot point to "shotgun" the weapon for cleaning. It is removed in civilian semi auto variants and allows a very quick visual check for anyone wanting to see if you have a full auto rifle vs a civilian semi-auto variant. It is a relic from the 1980's import license.

e request, would you please explain (once, anyway) what it mean when you use terms like "CQB/SFARTEC", and the like.

CQB = Close Quarter Battle

SFARTEC = Special Forces Advanced Reconnaissance Techniques = A CQB shooting school.

It is part of the origin of this much abused symbol by the Gun rights folks.



It is a great school to learn pistol/subgun and Close Quarter Battle Tactics/Marksmanship.

As opposed to SOTIC (Special Operations Target Interdiction now the SFSC, Special Forces Sniper Course) which is probably the best shooting school in the DoD inventory for long guns. I thought I knew how to shoot because I knew BRAS (Breath Relax Aim Squeeze) and got expert (usually Hawkeye'd-perfect score) at qualification time. After going to that school, I realized I knew very very little beforehand about shooting.

The purpose of the reinforcement rails on the PSG1 is simply to strengthen the receiver by reducing flex or torque, I don't see how it could have any significant bearing on bullet weight.

You are saying the exact same thing I wrote without realizing it and then discount the physics that cause the change in "flex". I am sure you did not mean to do that.

Harmonics = Nature of frequency patterns = related to wave length = changes to "flex" of the weapon.

The harmonics or "flex" changes because the heavier bullet weight = larger mechanical forces on the action. The Roller Delayed Blowback like any other blowback system is set up based upon a fixed mechanical relationship.

Change those mechanical forces and you the change system.

[davidsog]

I think you are overthinking it. European gun designers have a long standing school of thought that various controls (safety, mag release, etc.) are not needed to be operated with the shooting hand, in the firing grip position.

Just thought of this and it might help to better understand the differences in thought regarding ergonomics.

Rent or borrow an HK USPc, P2000, or VP9 series pistol. They all come with HK's ambidextrous magazine release.

Try working that release as a standard american thumb operated push button. You will hate it most likely and complain. Bring it to your workspace and the pistol is too wide and the magazine release is awkward. I agree.

Now try it how HK intended to be operated, with your trigger finger....

Suddenly the release is perfectly positioned when the pistol is in your workspace AND it has the added benefit of reinforcing getting your bugger hook off the bang switch....finger off the trigger.

It is wonderfully ergonomic in the environment HK designed it for....

Remember, Heckler and Koch until recently did not cater to the civilian market. They are trying more now but kind of suck at it because it is not their experience base. It was just not their bread and butter. Until recently, they live and breath off professional combat shooters.

[stagpanther]

Way beyond my pay grade--but thanks for the great discussion/information. : )

[davidsog]

Yet another drawback of the CETME was the fact that I could only shoot 150's with NATO brass without fear of case head separation. I agree that the rifle Century cobbled together was a poor example of the design but if we get into other manufacturers the price is up there with an M1A or more.

Yeah, the system is really designed for standard NATO M80 ball (146-147 grain). The good news is it will eat up that cheap Tula/Wolf 150 grain maintaining accuracy.

Let yourself go....Get the cheap stuff and roll in the mud....it is a pig and the rifle likes it.

The magazines are dirt cheap too. For cost of one FN-FAL 20 round magazine, you can get 10 aluminium magazines for the PTR-91. I do not even bother with the steel. They are too heavy and the Aluminium magazines are durable/well made.

Price wise, the PTR-91 GI is running some 300-400 dollars less than the DSA FN-FAL's and Springfield M1A's for the comparable base model.

The DSA Voyager series "FN-FAL like" rifle is pretty close in price at about 75 bucks more at Atlantic Firearms but then you still have to spend almost as much on the magazines as the rifle. I did not get it because I have no idea what a "lightweight aluminum receiver" is in a FAL which has three receiver designs because of cracking issues. Could be the best thing since sliced bread but the jury is still out on that one and I have enough time as a "wind dummy" when I worked for Uncle Sugar.

And God help you if the bolt gap is bad or there is a real problem with the rifle.

Proper maintenance maintaining a bolt gap is not limited to the G3 but is function of any mechanical device. A proper bolt gap is common to just about every semi-automatic design in existence. That the system is much easier to check than most rifles is kind of a feature and not a flaw.

[jersurf101]

So you are disputing that its easier to fix an AR pattern rifle the a DRB?

[davidsog]

So you are disputing that its easier to fix an AR pattern rifle the a DRB?

It very much depends on what needs fixing. Both are mechanical devices, both require maintenance including proper bolt gaps/chamber tolerances.

The difference is a G3 bolt gap can be checked by the soldier and adjusted rather quickly at the unit level whereas the AR cannot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwNZ4mrZwJg

It is not even a soldier level check or maintenance in the AR15 series. It is depot level maintenance in the most militaries.

It is rare but not unheard of to find either one out of specs. About as often as headspace issues with an AR series.

[44 AMP]

The difference is a G3 bolt gap can be checked by the soldier and adjusted rather quickly at the unit level whereas the AR cannot.

"the AR cannot", and does not need to be. Different designs, and design philosophies.

It is not even a soldier level check or maintenance in the AR15 series. It is depot level maintenance in the most militaries.

Not sure just what you are referring to with the AR15 series. Bolt gap?? Headspace?? Something else??

There is no "bolt gap" in the AR, like there is in the HK. They are much different designs, and direct comparison of many of the design features of the two is meaningless. Kind of like comparing setting the ignition point gap in the distributor of an engine (done by the user, or local garage) vs. an engine with electronic ignition. OR comparing carburetor adjustment vs. fuel injection. Both systems serve the same purpose, but do it mechanically differently, so a direct comparison has little or no value.

When I was a Small Arms Repairman (MOS 45B20) the Army used a 5 level system.

Level 1 was user, 2 was company (unit armorer), level 3 was Direct Support, 4 was General Support, and 5 was Depot level maintenance.

Level 1 (user) was very limited in what they were authorized to do. (including not being authorized to completely disassemble the weapon)

Level 2 (user's company level support = unit armorers) could do more, but were also restricted from doing many things. Replacing stocks, handguards, and a few other small parts was their function. Everything else was a higher level function.

Direct & General level maintenance was done by the support companies of the division support battalion.

The only Depot level item on the M16 was repair/replacement of the lower receiver. Everything else was done at the 3-4 support level. This included replacing barrels.

Different philosophies, different SOP. HK design supports doing certain tasks at user or company level, the AR design does not. OR probably more correctly, the overseeing authority allowed certain tasks at different levels.

There was, and is a valid reason for not allowing line troops, or the next higher support level to do certain things. #1 is that they are not trained, or equipped for that.

Remember we are not talking about what an intelligent, informed individual may be able to do with their own rifle, but what organizations allow under their training umbrella. The individual soldier might know how to remove and properly re-install the AR trigger group, but if not officially trained, they aren't authorized to do it. Some will do it anyway, of course. Troops are like that. When line troops screwed it up, and the unit armorer wasn't able (or wasn't allowed) to fix it, I was the guy they brought it to, to get it fixed.

Whether its small arms, tanks, or typewriters, there are tons of things that the service doesn't want line troops screwing with in the field. It causes more problems than it fixes.

[ttarp]

You are saying the exact same thing I wrote without realizing it and then discount the physics that cause the change in "flex". I am sure you did not mean to do that.

Harmonics = Nature of frequency patterns = related to wave length = changes to "flex" of the weapon.

The harmonics or "flex" changes because the heavier bullet weight = larger mechanical forces on the action. The Roller Delayed Blowback like any other blowback system is set up based upon a fixed mechanical relationship.

Change those mechanical forces and you the change system.

Not my forte, I'll admit it, but if you simply add the reinforcing rails, and then start shooting significantly heavier grain ammo, regardless of the presence of the rails, without changing locking pieces you'll induce damage. At one point there were 80 different locking pieces for the various 7.62X51 rifles, all compensating for different barrel lengths and ammo combinations. The solution isn't to beef up the receiver to take the abuse, its to alter the mechanical forces to eliminate the abuse.

[davidsog]

While bolt gap and headspace are not the same thing, in the HK RDB system, the bolt gap is used to determine if the headspace is correct. For practical purposes in this conversation, the terms can be used interchangeably in the HK RDB system vs AR15 series.

I just wondered why you considered the fact it was so easy to check the bolt gap as a flaw and not a feature? I was not trying to draw direct comparison but you raised the issue so now I am curious.

Since you have raised it then it is also entirely appropriate to discuss the procedures to check the headspace in the rifles.

"the AR cannot", and does not need to be. Different designs, and design philosophies.

The headspace absolutely does need to be checked. There is a "cult" of uninformed out there in AR world who seem to promote, "it is spec'd and does not need to be checked". That is just plain wrong.

I have personally encountered M4's with headspace issues while in the Army especially when nearing the end of their useful barrel life. Typical of ANY rifle nearing the end of its life expectancy.

Which is why you should always check the headspace on a "new to you" firearm.

As with any other rifle, you should check headspace on any used AR-15 or upper receiver you purchase from a friend, gun show, or even from a gun store. Headspace should have already been checked on brand-new guns or assembled uppers before they leave the factory, but it certainly won't hurt to verify the headspace on them.

https://www.brownells.com/guntech/ch....htm?lid=17140

It is the same with the HK RDB system. You check the bolt gap on a new rifle and after break in to ensure the system settled properly.

After that, just like an AR-15 series, run it and if a problem develops you can check it again if the symptoms warrant. Difference is you do not need to disassemble the HK RDB rifle and no specialty tools required. A $ 4.00 set of standard feeler gauges and you are off to the races.

edit'd to fix my horrible spelling

[hdwhit]

My son has yet to forgive me for getting him an AR-15 instead of a Springfield M1A.

I went to school with a guy who was assembling AR-10s before he was old enough to own one. He still does it. But his is custom gun work, so I'm leaving him out of this discussion as a potential supplier. He has told me over the years that AR-10 parts are less uniform than AR-15 parts and so the assembler has to know what he is doing to produce a reliable rifle.

[hdwhit]

stagpanther wrote:
The rifled chamber is very nice...

Did you mean "fluted chamber" rather than rifled chamber?

[davidsog]

The solution isn't to beef up the receiver to take the abuse, its to alter the mechanical forces to eliminate the abuse.

True and that is what is required.

And my post was not a detailed dissertation on the design changes of the PSG-1. You are right as there are a plethora of changes. You can hold the common parts between a G3 and a PSG-1 in one hand with the receiver being one common part.

It was just used as a good visible example to illustrate the principle of design changes to facilitate a heavier bullet and restore the harmonics.

Something for the shooter to think about has he lament's purchasing that expensive match ammo only to find out is not as accurate as the cheap stuff in his rifle while looking at his target and scratching his head on the range.

[davidsog]

My son has yet to forgive me for getting him an AR-15 instead of a Springfield M1A.

I went to school with a guy who was assembling AR-10s before he was old enough to own one. He still does it. But his is custom gun work, so I'm leaving him out of this discussion as a potential supplier. He has told me over the years that AR-10 parts are less uniform than AR-15 parts and so the assembler has to know what he is doing to produce a reliable rifle.

You hit the nail on the head as to the biggest downside of the AR10.

There is little parts interchangeability and you are linked to specific manufacturer.

[jersurf101]

Agreed on the AR10 not having the parts interchangeable like an AR15. For the record it's not that way with the other platforms either. This is where the M1A would be best. From what I have read FALs have two different receiver sizes and I know from experience that the G3/CETME are two totally different platforms with different innards so not a lot of interchangeable parts there other than the stock and the fore end.

[stagpanther]

Did you mean "fluted chamber" rather than rifled chamber?

Yes--fluted--I said rifled only because the carbon deposit on the spent cases looks like they have a twist.

[davidsog]

From what I have read FALs have two different receiver sizes and I know from experience that the G3/CETME are two totally different platforms with different innards so not a lot of interchangeable parts there other than the stock and the fore end.

You have to be careful for sure.

There are three different service FAL receivers. The rifle had a problem with the receivers cracking. The differences are in the lightening cuts and reinforcement.

The CETME and G3(HK clones) are different rifles. CETME stuff is not necessarily interchangeable with any HK design.

The PTR series are built on HK equipment and everything is interchangeable with HK parts (G3 or HK91). I bought an HK all metal charging lever for mine because the PTR pictures showed a different charging lever. It just happened to be a waste of time as the rifle showed up with the more desirable all metal charging lever. Got an original Rheinmetall bolt carrier for mine that drops right in as does an original HK training ammunition bolt carrier. Works great and very cheap to shoot.

[davidsog]

This is where the M1A would be best.

The M1A is a good choice. In fact none of them under discussion (M1A, FN-FAL, AR10, or PTR 91) are bad choices. You are really splitting hairs in a discussion like this!

[44 AMP]

Which is why you should always check the headspace on a "new to you" firearm.

Agree, and as a civilian, you can. Now, how do you do it when you're a grunt on the sharp end, with an issued rifle? You don't. You don't have the gauge, and most likely you don't know how to use it. Neither does your company armorer.

That sacred ability resides with higher level support, and to get it done requires a work order, or the good ol boy backchannel, hey buddy, let me buy you a beer...

doesn't really matter that much, I think, if its out of spec, it goes in for repair, if its not, it doesn't. It's not like the user can fix it in the field. They can't.

Do you know if nation's that use the G3 allow line troops (user level) to check their bolt gap and install different rollers to correct it if needed?? I don't know, but I kind of doubt it. What is a simple job for the educated enthusiast is a different job for the field grunt, who, by intent isn't allowed to work on the internals of their weapons, beyond cleaning.

I suppose a local command MIGHT allow it, but generally local commands are not all that flexible about some things, and one of those can be your weapon. I served in one unit who's commander forbid the troops from removing the extractor from the bolt. Despite the fact that it was one of the few parts the user was authorized to remove, he was convinced troops would lose it, or the spring, and so it was better they didn't do it. Made it a damn standing order in his company, which, ticked off the armorer, to no end...because he had to do it, for every rifle in the company...

and yes, I do hate SOME officers...

[davidsog]

Agree, and as a civilian, you can. Now, how do you do it when you're a grunt on the sharp end, with an issued rifle? You don't. You don't have the gauge, and most likely you don't know how to use it. Neither does your company armorer.

That sacred ability resides with higher level support, and to get it done requires a work order, or the good ol boy backchannel, hey buddy, let me buy you a beer...

doesn't really matter that much, I think, if its out of spec, it goes in for repair, if its not, it doesn't. It's not like the user can fix it in the field. They can't.

Do you know if nation's that use the G3 allow line troops (user level) to check their bolt gap and install different rollers to correct it if needed?? I don't know, but I kind of doubt it. What is a simple job for the educated enthusiast is a different job for the field grunt, who, by intent isn't allowed to work on the internals of their weapons, beyond cleaning.

I suppose a local command MIGHT allow it, but generally local commands are not all that flexible about some things, and one of those can be your weapon. I served in one unit who's commander forbid the troops from removing the extractor from the bolt. Despite the fact that it was one of the few parts the user was authorized to remove, he was convinced troops would lose it, or the spring, and so it was better they didn't do it. Made it a damn standing order in his company, which, ticked off the armorer, to no end...because he had to do it, for every rifle in the company...

and yes, I do hate SOME officers...

This is a different conversation and I can only speak for the US Army units that I have served in that had MP-5's and the G3's at SWC.

We checked the bolt gap as the armorers wanted to know where it was at when we turned the weapons in.

None of that is the point. You cannot take a feature and make it a flaw. The feature that it is so easy to do and does not require disassembly or special tools is not a flaw whoever checks it.

The same set of feeler gauges can be used to adjust the valves in your car, points gap in your Harley, and set the bolt gap on your HK91 series.

You do not need to purchase expensive special purpose Headspace gauges or disassemble the weapon to do it.

https://www.brownells.com/gunsmith-t...uges/index.htm