First Rifle: .308 carbine v. M4?

[mobeginner]

Hey guys, I've been lurking for a while and thought I would finally stick my head up. Great site BTW, very informative.

I'm contemplating what will be my first and only rifle purchase for a while and would like some thoughts on the M4 versus a .308 rifle. I know "what will you use it for" is a key question . . . basically right now I will be plinking for a while, just getting used to rifle use, maintenance, bascially fun and recreation. However due to $$$ I may have to keep the rifle for a while, and it is not impossible that sooner or later I will want to shoot for accuracy, etc. In any event since I'm busy, low-maintenance, low-problems is pretty key.

I have a couple of questions, sorry if these have appeared in other threads, I did not see them:

1. What generally prompts people to choose the M4 over a .308 carbine, and vice-versa? Are there significant differences in maintenance, accuracy, reliability, etc.? What are the pertinent considerations?

2. I saw "The Chart" regarding aspects of various mfg's of M4s . . . i.e. whether various mfgs conformed to milspec on various components and elements . . . Is anyone aware of a similar chart for .308 carbines? Again, I did not see the same in the "Big Bore" forum . . . .

Thanks so much and I hope to be a positive member of the community!

[Failure2Stop]

Knowledgable people tend to choose .223/5.56 carbines over .308/7.62 for a variety of reasons, from negligable recoil to wide commonality and interchangability of parts.

The big question is: Why choose a 7.62?

The number of reliable guns in relation to lemons in the 7.62 arena is very different than with 5.56 carbines. That is why the 6.8 and 6.5 have a strong following, along with the SCAR-H and Massoud. Everyone is waiting for a 7.62 semi-auto platform that actually works (other than a FN/FAL or M14 pattern) for a reasonable price.

The big problem with a milspec chart for .308 ARs is that there really isn't anyone building SR25s other than Knights, and despite some issues with them, they are all being pumped into needy hands. There are apparently some decent .308 nofferings, but in all reality they are hobby guns. Nothing wrong with that, depending on your application.

Welcome to the site, good luck. Were I in your shoes, I would buy a decent 5.56/.223.

[RogerinTPA]

Welcome to the forum. I chose the 5.56/M4 platform for these reasons:

1. Platform I'm most familiar with, even though I have a lot of trigger time with match grade M1A1's and M21's.

2. Most modular platform, but M1A's are getting there.

3. At the time, 5.56/.223 ammo was dirt cheap and still not cost prohibitive.... yet. As the war continues on, the price of military ammo will continue to increase. 5.56 prices are getting out of control but there are signs of the high end brass ammo regressing. Now compare that to 7.62 ammo. It's almost a 3rd more in cost than 5.56 and training time will be inhibited because of it (Unless you are well off).

4. With it's light and manageable recoil, it's easier to train everyone in the family to use.

5. With a wide variety of ammo available, you can do just about everything you can do with 7.62, except engage NEPUT's (Non electrical pop up targets) beyond 500 meters. I have witnessed a lot of guys on a lot of ranges with weapons of various calibers that can't even engage targets beyond 25 yards effectively, even with a shotgun!

[tiger seven]

The lack of standardization is the primary factor that turns me off of the 7.62 guns. They certainly can be good rifles, but the various designs (AR-10, SR-25, LR-308) have too many proprietary parts for my tastes. To my mind, that's not generally synonymous with "low-maintenance, low-problems" fun and recreation. :)

The .223/5.56 rifles can vary widely in quality (as The Chart shows) but they are for the most part mechanically and functionally identical, and parts and accessories will fit any weapon that is made to the proper specifications. As long as you stick with a quality rifle and quality components, you should have very few problems whether plinking or pursuing serious training.

And welcome to M4C, by the way.

Derek

[Severian]

blank

[carbinero]

I'm with all of the above, and will add...

From this site I found out that there is no gas impingement AR-10 style carbine in .308 recommended by tactical classes, (for durability reasons, I assumed.) None of the pistons really float my boat (DSA FAL, M1A, HK91), so I'm waiting for an FN or Magpul version.

For home defense, 5.56 is preferable due to overpenetration of the .308.

I really enjoy shooting with less recoil (less expensive helps, too). With enjoyment comes practice. And practice makes...proficiency.

[Gutshot John]

I respectfully disagree. I shoot both, but as a civilian I've shot far more .308 than 5.56 and if my life was on the line, I'd reach for the .308. It does a lot of things well. Don't get me wrong, I like 5.56, but it's comparing apples to oranges. One's an assault rifle cartridge... the other is a full-power rifle cartridge.

.308 used to be lots cheaper than 5.56, now it's about on par. 2-3x the price? I don't think so. Maybe 20% more but that's about it these days. I stocked up when milsurp .308 was cheap so its less an issue for me. That being said, how much is too much for better a better bullet? For the extra money you might be getting what you pay for.

Outside of an urban environment, in rural or woodland especially it doesn't get much better than .308. .308 is not a CQB round if overpenetration is a consideration, but this gets to the "what do you want to use it for" problem. You may want the round to penetrate hard cover/wall etc. Distance, penetration, power, terminal ballistics...the .308 delivers superior performance to the 5.56. The 5.56 is an adequate round, but it's far from perfect.

For ease of maintenance, reliability, availability of parts and accuracy, it doesn't get much better than the FAL most especially DSA. There is lots of sentimental attachment to the M14, but the commercial M1A is nowhere near the same quality as the military version. Accuracy of the M14 is marginally better than the FAL, but it's a rare shooter that can tell. You will spend $2.5K+ to get a quality M14, a DSA FAL you can get for about $1500.

[Raiden]

1. What generally prompts people to choose the M4 over a .308 carbine, and vice-versa? Are there significant differences in maintenance, accuracy, reliability, etc.? What are the pertinent considerations?Speaking as a defensive-minded civilian who recently got out of 7.62 entirely (with the exception of my M1 Garand!)...

5.56 is lighter, cheaper, more easily obtained, I can acquire, carry and store more of it in the limited space and budget available to me, my female aquaintance can shoot both the cartridge and the rifle without trouble, and it does at least an adequate job for what I'd want to do with it.

5.56 rifles and parts are widely used, widely available, and in current production. They are lighter, smaller, generally cheaper, and the scale and diversity of aftermarket support boggles the mind.

If I'm in a position where .308 would make a difference over what I already own, I can assume that I'm knee-deep in sh-t at that point, and the circumstances are so extraordinary that I can't predict what I would and would not need, from where I'm sitting right now. 7.62 can do things that 5.56 can't, and I do have some big caliber stuff available, but it's not my primary go-to anymore. I got sick of long, non-modular, ten-pound-plus rifles that I had trouble getting out of my closet. I was spending more time on forums hunting foreign parts manufactured when my father was in high school, than I was shooting. I also felt like an idiot trying to demonstrate why my FAL was cool to the lady roommate, when she couldn't even lift the damned thing. :p

Pride goeth before the fall... :D

[Gutshot John]

If I'm in a position where .308 would make a difference over what I already own, I can assume that I'm knee-deep in sh-t at that point, and the circumstances are so extraordinary that I can't predict what I would and would not need, from where I'm sitting right now.

Except that you can apply that same logic to the 5.56 qualities. For example you can carry more 5.56 than .308, but as a civilian if that would make a difference to have an extra hundred rounds, than you can assume you're in knee-deep kim-chee and circumstances are so extraordinary you can't predict what you would need.

There are valid reasons to choose the 5.56, but all things being equal if the point of a bullet is to kill then there is a certain logic in selecting the biggest, hardest hitting, long-range accurate round you can get? If we assume the SHTF scenario, and bullets become precious, why not the round that's most likely to get the job done with the fewest number of trigger pulls?

I'm sure others will disagree, but that would be the logic for picking the .308.

[Raiden]

Sure, from that standpoint, 7.62 is the best choice out of the common NATO calibers, but that's not the only thing I'm considering. Besides cost (which will go out the window in a hypothetical disaster scenario) I'm not the only one who might have to use the rifle. I have no problems with putting together and using a shorty Para-style FAL. I can't say the same for the lady of the house.

[LTPhoon]

My entry into AR-pattern rifles was with a DPMS .308 AP4 which is a 7.62x51 16" carbine. Ammo was about what 5.56 is now when I bought it last August. I bought a Colt 6920 last November which is pretty much as close as you are going to come to an M4 outside of the military. Ammo is currently cheaper than .30 cal but not by a lot. The 5.56 AR-15 is much more manageable to shoot and thus a better platform with which to learn about the particulars of an EBR. So I might have the best of both worlds. Although the DPMS is a heavy bastard to lug around...and welcome to the forum!

[khc3]

A good possible compromise is an AR in 6.8.

[sff70]

This is really a multi-part question.

Part 1 is the old 7.62 v. 5.56.

Part 2 is which is the better platform.

As to Part 1, 7.62 has an advantage at penetrating cover, but 5.56 has good terminal ballistics with the best of class bullets.

A 7.62 rifle will generally weigh more, shoot more expensive ammo, and have slower split times.

7.62 has better down range ballistics, which becomes an advantage with increased distance, but most combat occurs at less than 50 yds. Of course, there are some notable exceptions.

The mission should drive the equipment (cartridge).

In my experience, AR type systems are easier to maintain than M14 type systems. AR type systems are also much easier to modify, to find quality replacement parts for, etc.

Having spent some time with an AR10, I'll take an M4 any day of the week and twice on Sunday. There is a significant weight penalty to the AR10, it's slower to shoot, and you have to reload it more often.

I used to own an M1A NM, which I shot in 3 gun competition, and Tactical Rifle competition. Same comments as for the AR10, plus the length of the system was a huge encumbrance.

I did much better with AR type rifles and carbines, for the reasons above. Also, optics and mounting solutions are more plentiful and better for AR systems than they are for M14 type systems.

You can put together a first rate 5.56 AR type system with quality accessories and optics for less money than an 7.62 AR type system, or an M14 type system.

A lot of this comes down to your budget and your mission. But don't forget about the maintenance, accessories, etc.

[mattmcg]

Start with a 5.56 and learn the rifle. From there, the complexity of options increases since the AR-308 is a bit less standard.