Quote:
Originally Posted by ABNAK
Mlok MWS defenders are available from LMT for $2299. I was quoted $2013 + tax at my LGS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ABNAK
Mlok MWS defenders are available from LMT for $2299. I was quoted $2013 + tax at my LGS.
So much [emoji91]Quote:
Originally Posted by NongShim
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'll pipe up as a current or former owner of several of the contenders. The core question is "what ammo are we shooting?" If the answer is M118 or FGMM/similar, then a good AR-10 becomes unbeatable. If M80, it probably still wins. Still, I'll give my opinion gun by gun. My biases: I'm an AK guy, iron sights shooter, and I have a knee-jerk reaction against American-made products.
First the legacy rifles (which I've shot the most):
FAL: Owned 10, built 8, own 0 now. Assuming an AR-equivalent optic mounting system, not better than an AR-10. Key strength(s): ergos approach greatness in L1A1 format, very pleasant shooter. Key weakness: tilting block operating system not only leads to less consistent performance but requires a (heavy) milled steel receiver. Against its contemporaries, its adjustable gas system was never a good idea. Large accuracy variance between guns. Additionally, these get clapped out quicker than the other two legacy guns—unless the parts kit was new, the gas system showed erosion somewhere.
G3: Owned 3, built 2, own 0. Assuming an AR-equivalent optic mounting system, not better than an AR-10. Key strength(s): performance, both at rest and while moving. Once you settle into a G3, they can really perform well (2 MOA with M80 in many cases). Key weakness(es): alien ergos, unpleasant to shoot versus rivals (wear a face mask), consequently harder for most to shoot well. Terrible standard triggers. Immediately filthy. Guns are often wobbly which I despise.
M14: Owned 3, built 2, own 2. Assuming an AR-equivalent optic mounting system, clearly not better than an AR-10. Key strength(s): killer sights and sight radius, excellent trigger, easy shooter, especially easy to make hits with at distance. Key weakness(es): last century's ergonomics, clamp-type assembly, gaping maw action, unsealed wood, accuracy variance between barrels, barrel components mounting method. Controversial note 1: I've not found the bedding/accuracy inconsistency wives tales to be true at all. Controversial note 2: Springfield M1As are not equivalent to USGI parts builds. For whatever reason, they feel, sound, and shoot differently. Compromised, but my choice of the legacy guns.
And more contemporary rifles:
LMT MWS: Own 1. Is an AR-10. Clearly a precision rifle that's probably out of your requirements' bounds. Defender format might be different but I'd bet it's still HK heavy.
MR762A1/417: Own 1. Not better than an AR-10. In this format, it's either a decent precision rifle or a mediocre infantry rifle. Key strength(s): AR ergos, HK quality, accurate. Key weakness(es): no benefit over AR-10 type for the added weight, somewhat (and inexplicably) unpleasant to fire. Should probably exit my life.
SG 751 16": Own 1 that's sitting here in my office right now. Not better than an AR-10 in its price range. Key strength(s): physically walks the line between precision rifle and modern battle rifle, AK ergos good for me, lighter than you'd think given its heavy barrel. Key weakness(es): cooler than everything here but does nothing better, and frankly I find lesser AK-types more likeable.
Galil ACE: Own 1. Not better than an infantry-focused AR-10 in practice, but now maybe we're getting somewhere. Key strength(s): good weight, good sights, surprisingly accurate. Key weakness(es): almost requires RS Regulate foreend, not spectacular at anything. Still a great choice but might be better in smaller calibers.
FN SCAR 17S: Own 1. Controversially good, better than many but not all AR-10s. Key strength(s): accuracy, weight, sights, buttstock adjustability, ergonomics. Key weakness(es): already outdated, FN should create an M-LOK foreend and probably an SR-25 lower while they're at it. People mod these well past KAC SR-25 E2 CC money.
I'm looking forward to trying these 7.62 NATO rifles in the future:
B&T APC 308: Might actually be the modern SCAR. We'll see.
KAC SR-25 E2 CC: Tons of features and refinements a once-per-month plinker like me won't benefit from, but I've come too far not to try one. I own all this other crap I don't use enough.
Colt CM762: Stands an honest chance of being the right gun for the right price (in the wrong caliber :)).
I am just going to go into the PSA AR10. Not sure what the results will be. Dependability is what I am looking at. I like the fact it is a familiar feel in the hand. Easy to toss trinkets and cell phone charger/cup holders on. ;)
I’ve found the allure of 7.62 hard to get away from even though I know the caliber is horribly dated. My experience with 7.62 semi’s mimic Danus, with the exception that I find the M14 to be the worst legacy battle rifle, and the FAL and G3 tied for the least worst (there is no best here, they all have a lot of problems compared to even cheaper large frame ARs. I currently have a few FALs, and keep them only for fun and nostalgia.
I really wanted to love the HK MR762, but it was really snappy when shooting with no more accuracy than my DD5V1 or even POF. I was very close to buying one before I found a rental locally. I wish I knew the details as to why it was selected for the CSASS over Knight’s or LMT.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I looked at your link and then did some other searching. The price/manufacturer combo looks pretty damn enticing. Just wish it had an 18" or greater barrel. IMHO 16" lops off a little too much velocity for my liking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jsp10477
This covers it very well and I agree 100% for the rifles I have experience with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danus ex
My own short, short version:
M14/M1A: obsolete when designed, and badly designed by a committee trying to re-fight WW1. Don't be lured by the siren song.
G3/PTR91: if it were priced like an AKM, which it should be, it would be the ideal rifle for anyone who's 6'8" tall with proportional hands and strength. This design is a simple stamped metal, minimal-machining gun like the AKM, but it costs double because of the HK/German mystique. Downsized, this would be a worthy contender to the AKM, but due to lack of wide use of the 5.56 versions that exist are premium priced and not worth buying as shooters at the going rates.
FAL: a far better committee design than the M14, it's the best answer to what European armies asked for in the 1950's, although not what they really should have asked for. I like the the design and as a collectible, but as a shooter they are obsolete.
A well made AR-10 style can be a worthy infantry style gun with a lightweight barrel or a precision gun as seen with the SR-25 and MWS. I don't know of any currently widespread design that is better across the board. Quality and reliability varies a lot with the specific manufacturer, of course.
I always have called the HK a HK91. Nose heavy always felt weird to me. I thought about getting an M1A when PSA had them so cheap and added the free scope mount. I kind of wish I had got one because I was issued a M14 back in the early 70's. I think it is a beautiful design. I am sure the copies are Springfield garbage.
I’ll agree with most of what’s said. And say that the AR10 has the most potential of current rifles designs.
However, One rifle that looks incredibly promising, and hasn’t been brought up is the CZ Bren BR. It just isn’t available yet. If it turns out to be what it advertises... And CZ has a good track record in that regard, it will be what the scar should have been.
Then it needs to be out for a year or two until they work the bugs out.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolffie