Do you think an AR10-style platform is better than other 7.62 bullet launchers?

By "AR10" I mean a 7.62x51 AR weapon.

Let's say criteria are accuracy, weight, and durability/reliability. Not saying it has to be a dedicated sniper weapon like the SR-25/M110, but more like the Armalite AR10 "Infantry Rifle" (with a flattop receiver for RDS/magnified optics). Obviously not suggesting Armalite is in the competition quality-wise, but something along the lines of a scaled-up M4. For 7.62 I'm talking an 18" or 20" barrel, not a 16" or less.

I ask this on an AR-based website, so I know what the general consensus will be. Yet folks on here usually do a pretty good of being honest.

Personally I think that the perfect platform for a 5.56mm combat weapon is the AR (at this time in history of course). What would be the perfect platform for a 7.62NATO combat weapon?

I guess it depends on the roll it will used in.

Just finished my AR308, but I went with 16" .

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 223to45

I guess it depends on the roll it will used in.

Just finished my AR308, but I went with 16" .

---

Let's say a general issue role. Sure, I know that in 2019 it is highly unlikely a 7.62NATO weapon would be fielded as a country's main weapon (not saying there aren't countries out there who do so), but let's say that a governmental entity was going to issue it for the average grunt. Would the AR10 platform be the best choice?

It might need to be further broken down into method of operation, like the AR10 vs the HK417 for instance. Both are 7.62 AR-style weapons, but operate differently.

I have often wondered if the basic AR platform is sturdy enough for a steady diet of 7.62NATO. While the AR10 technically predates the AR15, the AR15 took off exponentially as compared to the AR10.

Fielded 308 AR's are pretty good these days. the Big 3, Kac, LMT, and HK have proven to be more the capable used in a non precision role. Are they the best... I think at the moment, but if FN chose to spend a couple years refining the Scar, i think that it could be an awesome choice for general issue.

it really all depends on what is most important factor in making a choice, whats number one? weight? reliability? durability, flexibility, muscle memory? The scar might be a little lighter and reliable when used as an infantry rifle, but comes with the drawback of not being as durable and having a reciprocating charging handle.

their are pros and cons to everything

I think it's better in the configuration we have them in today.

There really isn't that many 308 battle rifles that were actually fielded in large numbers. We have the FAL, G3, M14, SCAR and the AR.

FAL and G3 being the two biggest by far. The FAL was never really modernized, there weren't that many M14s, SCARs popularity with those who were issued them seem to be hit or miss when it comes to reliability which leaves just the G3.

The Norwegians have shown with their AG3 that you can modernize a G3 with rails and without using that claw mount.

I would say the G3 is probably an overall more robust weapon but the ability to change uppers and the accuracy potential from an AR make it a more adaptable weapon.

However, if we're looking at these platforms as they came out I would go with the G3

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arik

I think it's better in the configuration we have them in today.

There really isn't that many 308 battle rifles that were actually fielded in large numbers. We have the FAL, G3, M14, SCAR and the AR.

FAL and G3 being the two biggest by far. The FAL was never really modernized, there weren't that many M14s, SCARs popularity with those who were issued them seem to be hit or miss when it comes to reliability which leaves just the G3.

The Norwegians have shown with their AG3 that you can modernize a G3 with rails and without using that claw mount.

I would say the G3 is probably an overall more robust weapon but the ability to change uppers and the accuracy potential from an AR make it a more adaptable weapon.

However, if we're looking at these platforms as they came out I would go with the G3

---

The G3 is IMHO probably the most robust. It ain't "light" by any stretch.

A modern, top-tier AR10 rifle (like some have said KAC/LMT/HK) is probably your best bet, but right now their cost would preclude "general issue". Those weapons are filling a more specialized accuracy role.

I guess Turkey did it with adopting the HK-clone they produce, the MKEK Mehmecik MPT-76 National Rifle. That said, it's not a DI system, so a rather significant variance from the AR10 platform.

I again reluctantly mention the Armalite AR10 "Infantry Rifle". It had a 20" barrel and I assume you could put a flattop upper and rail system on it. But is that basic DI AR10 (forget the fact that it's an Armalite) robust enough for munching thousands and thousands of 7.62x51 while getting dragged up and down mountains, through jungles and swamps, or in the Sandbox? Are there things that need to be "beefed up" or altered in that basic system to increase robustness?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ABNAK

Let's say a general issue role. Sure, I know that in 2019 it is highly unlikely a 7.62NATO weapon would be fielded as a country's main weapon (not saying there aren't countries out there who do so), but let's say that a governmental entity was going to issue it for the average grunt. Would the AR10 platform be the best choice?

It might need to be further broken down into method of operation, like the AR10 vs the HK417 for instance. Both are 7.62 AR-style weapons, but operate differently.

I have often wondered if the basic AR platform is sturdy enough for a steady diet of 7.62NATO. While the AR10 technically predates the AR15, the AR15 took off exponentially as compared to the AR10.

---

I seem to recall that when Knight's was developing the M110K1 they ran something like 50,000 rounds of M80 ball through a few of them to prove durability and reliability. I would consider the KAC and likely the LMT to be as combat durable as M4's and maybe even more so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mack7.62

I seem to recall that when Knight's was developing the M110K1 they ran something like 50,000 rounds of M80 ball through a few of them to prove durability and reliability. I would consider the KAC and likely the LMT to be as combat durable as M4's and maybe even more so.

---

Seems to be what I've read also. The LMT would appear to be the more reasonable one price-wise (and still ain't cheap at ~ $2800), 'cause nearly $5K is beginning to push my willingness to pay!

https://www.knightarmco.com/product/military

You're going to have to look far and wide to beat an AR-based 7.62 individual battle rifle.

No way the M14. The FAL had a stamped receiver cover -- lousy for optics. The G3 is plain heavy.

The original Fairchild-Artillerie Armalite and the second-generation Westrom AR-10 can be updated for all the modern gadgets. Knights has some turn-key off-the-shelf rifles you'd just have to add ammo. LMT's could stand to lose some weight.