Recommendations for a .308 AR ?

[mechanicus]

...308 AR's aren't on the "light" side...

maybe ...let's wait on this guy's range report: link

[KevinB]

maybe ...let's wait on this guy's range report: link

FYI - Somehow I dont think Rana really needs a lecture or advice from you. Secondly quoting a half built gun is bad form for anyone.

A range report of ONE gun is not even a validation of concept - its an idea -

Secondly if you had listened to those of us who have been playing with this idea professionally, you'd see light 7.62N guns dont do so well

[armakraut]

I'm doing an ultra-lightweight rifle length DPMS 308 build right now. As much as I'd like to say otherwise, I'm not expecting a tack driver. To get the weight down, I'm willing to sacrifice a few things.

That being said, it's hard to shave weight off a .308. FAL and AR's have it easier than a G3 or M14.

[Hallboss]

not to highjack the thread, but I have a question I just recently purchased a Fulton 308 lower and from what Fulton and DPMS told me, DPMS makes the fulton lowers. I originally bought this lower to put a 24" bull barrel DPMS upper on it, because my BIL is a sniper in the Army and he uses a bolt 308 for a weapon. I am just riding on his experience and assume that the 308 would be a good round for me.

My intention for this rifle was for long range target practice somewhere 250-500 meters with the occasional visit to the 1000 meter bay. From the reliability and range benefit is the 308 worth it? Or should I be looking into a different cal or maybe just build a 24" AR-15 with the spare lower I have?

Thanks for the information,
Darin

[KevinB]

With an SR-25 platform anything over 20" bbl is suffering the law of dminishing retunrs in that receiver flex is starting to degrade accuracy potential, and your velocity increase is not that impressive.

[LonghunterCO]

With an SR-25 platform anything over 20" bbl is suffering the law of dminishing retunrs in that receiver flex is starting to degrade accuracy potential, and your velocity increase is not that impressive.

I am considering getting my 24" barrel threaded for a can. That would be my opertunity to have it shortened too. What is the vel. loss between the 20" and 24".

[maximus83]

S

MURG testing involved firing 30,000+ rounds without ANY parts breakage.

This seems like a very good start on testing the 6.8spc. Personally, my long-term hope is that the 6.8 will turn out to be a more viable caliber upgrade to 5.56, than trying to find some kind of battle rifle that is light enough, yet still durable and accurate enough, in 7.62. I've waited and researched, looking for a 7.62 battle rifle that I thought would be the winner in the horse race, but I just don't see it out there yet. Maybe the Scar-H down the road, but it's not available yet, doesn't work on existing AR platforms, and will still be expensive. And it doesn't address the issue of whether 7.62 is really the optimal caliber choice, for a battle rifle. Really, ballistically, the 6.8 seems almost ideal as a battle rifle caliber to upgrade to the 5.56 (I think some of Doc's other ballistic testing has well established that), except that I'm not quite ready to take the plunge yet.

A couple of times in the past year or so, I've been on the verge of taking the plunge into 6.8 myself, starting with getting an upper. But each time I've been about to, something has happened. One of the things that has held me back thus far has been the ongoing changes (over the past couple of years) to what are considered to be optimal barrel twist and chamber specs for the 6.8. These specs have changed a couple of times, and customers who got the earlier rifles now find that the latest ammo coming out for 6.8 cannot be fired safely in some of the rifles with the earlier specs. I am not knocking that fact: you have to do some experimenting and updating to develop a caliber to its full potential. It's just that I'm not ready to get on board yet, and spend my own money for it, until things have settled down and the optimal rifle specs are firmly established.

The other thing I'd like to see before I buy, in addition to the specs for the rifles stabilizing, is additional testing and adoption by more govt agencies. I'm always a little risk averse to buying an experimental rifle that, if not adopted by the govt or large numbers in the private sector, is likely to become an unsupported, expensive paperweight within 5 years. Personally, I cannot afford to buy the latest experimental calibers just for fun: I need to stick with something that will be adopted, and widely supported, and reliable. The above testing that Doc mentions is a great start, but personally, I am hoping to see even more testing in addition to the 30 rifles and 3K rounds apiece that were done. What would be really great is adoption by a large govt agency, which then later makes available its internal testing results, and/or its field use results. Obviously the military is unlikely to adopt 6.8 for general use anytime soon, but if substantial numbers of govt agencies, or even one big agency, adopts the 6.8 on a large scale and has a good experience, then I'll feel better about moving onto the 6.8 too.

Until then, I've basically already followed Rana's advice in his first post: get your rifle(s) set up in 5.56, and then get a good bolt rifle (or two, IMHO) in 7.62. But I'm definitely looking forward to trying 6.8, if it gets just a little more "established" and widely adopted.