The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > The Art of the Rifle: General

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old August 30, 2002, 01:51 PM   #1
Correia
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 3, 1998
Location: SLC Utah
Posts: 3,740
FAL vs. AR10 vs. M1a vs. G3

There have been a pile of theads comparing battle rifles lately, and rather than respond to all of them, I figured I would just make one big list.

Correia’s opinion on which is the Queen of Battle Rifles.

Ok, here goes. I’ve used all of these, and the following are just my opinions.

1. Accuracy: Good specimens of each of these can be very very accurate. The nod probably goes to the AR10. The heavy free floated barrel model that I was able to play with shot some amazing groups. But that is with the heavy barrel. Amongst the regular barreled, normal weight models I don’t think that there is a whole heck of a lot of difference. The AR is probably still going to be the best, but I’ve seen some phenomenal M1a shooting. The FAL and the G3 are going to come in after. But in field conditions I don’t think that there is going to be a whole lot of difference between the 4. Once you start shooting affordable milsurp ammo I bet the differences will be even more negligible. Personally I don’t worry about pretty groups off of the bench with my battle rifle, I worry if I can hit a steel plate out to 500 yards, fast.

2. Reliability: All 4 are going to be pretty darn reliable. I’ve got the most experience with the FAL, and it is one reliable rifle. It can work with lots of gunk inside the action. I have not shot an AR10 in really grungy conditions, but if it is as bad as my AR15 then it might be horrible, but that is just heresay on my part. All 4 have reputations of being reliable. I have also seen all 4 of these jam, and I've managed to jam a couple of AKs as well. No rifle is 100% reliable, some are just better than others. Note: any of them will jam up really bad if you get much sand in the magazines.

3. Cleaning: The AR10 is a pain in the butt to clean. Tiny little locking lugs, action that gets really grungy. Little parts that can be lost. Yuck. The G3 is okay, but not great, still hard to get deep in there. The M1a sucks to strip but for just cleaning in the field, you can get most of the crap out of the important areas with out stripping. You do have to clean from the muzzle end, which is a pain. The FAL is the easiest to maintain. Push a button, break it open, pull the bolt carrier out. Your done. Plus you can actually take the dust cover off and get in there to clean.

4. Ergonomics: Pure opinion. Hold them all and see what feels good. For me personally though, The AR mag change is the fastest, but it is real easy to have your loaded mag fall out because you didn’t get it fully seated. (it makes you look like a real pro when your magazine falls out of your gun during a 3 gun match. )

The rock and lock guns are slower. Of the 3, the G3 is the worst because the mag doesn’t want to go in very easy (with practice you get used to it), the M1a is next because you do have to use your left hand to release it. (Not a problem if you use the mag kind of like a forward grip like I do, because your hand is there anyway). The FAL is potentially the fastest of the rock and locks because you can drop the mag with your trigger finger while grabbing a spare with your left. (that is with metric, and if you have long fingers, inch releases are bigger, but are on the left side).

The cocking handle on the G3 is usually difficult to operate and very stout. Plus it is way out there, and hard to get leverage on. The AR cocking handle is just plain silly. The M1a is very stout, but it is on the right side of the gun, so you either reach over with your left, or you bring your firing hand up. The FAL is the easiest to use being right there, so you change a mag bring your left hand up.

With the AR though, on mag changes you don’t need to mess with the charging handle because you just hit the bolt release. Very fast. So I guess on the AR the only time you will mess with the charging handle is in case of malfunction. There are bolt releases on the other guns, but from what I’ve seen very few of us use them because they are harder to reach/operate.

Safeties: AR is easiest to use. FAL metric is hard to reach, inch is great. The M1a safety, you either love it or you hate it. The G3 is similar to the FAL in location. (and I've seen variations, some G3 clones work in the opposite direction, up for fire).

Magazines: FAL wins hands down. Tons of mags, for dirt cheap. G3 is second because you can get CETME mags almost as cheap as FAL mags. M1a is third, but costing quite a bit more. AR10 is the worst because you get the most expensive mags of the bunch, and then you modify them. But then again, buy the gun you like the best, put the money down, get a dozen mags and you are set.

Scope Mounting: AR flat top is great for scope mounting. Carry handle scope mounts put the scope way to high for most people. M1a scope mounts? I don’t know, I’ve only used one and it was a cheap piece of crap that put the scope too high. I’m sure there are better ones out there. The G3 claw mounts cost a fortune, and I wouldn’t buy one of those G3 clones with the integral scope base. (what are those things made out of anyway? Looks kind of like the stuff they make Chia pets out of) The FAL has some pretty good mounts that replace your dustcover, and then tighten up with screws. I had one that worked really well on mine, but I don’t shoot well with scopes, so I never use it anymore.

Iron sights. M1a sights rock. They are excellent. AR10 sights are good. FAL sights are courser, and harder to adjust. I don’t like the G3 drum sight at all, but it is probably even with the FAL. (I would take any of them over a buckhorn style site any day of the week)

Recoil: I know it seems like they should all be the same, but the G3 just seems to have the worst recoil. The others just seem softer. (Weird factoid, the CETME seems to kick less than the G3, go figure).

Stock design: If you prefer a regular style stock vs. a pistol grip then your decision is easy, get the M1a. On the others, it all comes down to which one feels the best.

Trigger: I’ve felt good ones on all of these rifles. The FAL gets a bad rap for being heavy, but that is mostly from cheap parts guns. There are more smiths who know how to tune an M1a or AR10 trigger. You can get either one of those to have really nice trigger pulls.

Accessories: Everything you could possibly want is out there for each rifle. HK stuff is drastically overpriced. How much crap do you want to hang off your battle rifle anyway?

Cost: An honest to goodness HK costs a small fortune now a days. Clones are out there, but they are parts guns so it is going to be hit or miss. The AR10 and M1a are going to run well over a thousand bucks. A DSA FAL is going to cost about the same. However if you know somebody (qualified) who can build a FAL, and know what kind of parts to buy, you can build a FAL of equivalent quality for much less money.

Just my opinions. Personally I use a FAL, I just happen to shoot it the best. But I would feel well armed with a good speciman of any of these guns.
Correia is offline  
Old August 30, 2002, 02:56 PM   #2
Christopher II
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 22, 1999
Location: Germantown, MD
Posts: 2,349
Seems like everyone is doing one of these nowadays. All for the best, 7.62mm semis can never be too popular.

A couple things:

Accuracy - The only one that is generally too inaccurate for MBR use is the G3. I've never seen a G3 or clone group better then 3MOA. The FAL will usually do 2, and if you want to dump a bunch of cash into it will go 0.75-1MOA with match ammo. The M14 will do the same for less money. The AR10 is in a class by itself.

Handling/Ergonomics - If you're left-handed, the M14 is way out in front. For 'lil old right-handed me the safety and bolt handle location really cause a problem.

Sighting options - The FAL iron sights suck, but the Para rear sight from DSA is a beefed-up AR style without the stupid and delicate ranging wheel. Highly recommended.

Also, tritium sights are only available for the AR10 and G3. DSA is working on a set for the FAL, but no one knows when it will hit the market.

Trigger - The G3 trigger is so bad it's almost not worth mentioning, though I've heard (Boston's 2002 Gun Bible revision) that you can drop in a CETME trigger group that's a lot better.

Overall - I went for a FAL. My next choice would be an M14. I like the AR10, but don't trust it enough to make it my primary system. I have no love whatsoever for the G3.

What this means to you - Decide which catagories are most important to you, and pick the rifle that fufills them. Better get two, while you're at it.

- Chris
__________________
"There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him." – Robert Heinlein

"Contrary to popular belief, your vote does not matter, and you cannot make a difference." - Bob Murphy, "Picking Neither of Two Evils"

My PGP Public Key
Christopher II is offline  
Old August 30, 2002, 03:08 PM   #3
Destructo6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 18, 1999
Location: Nogales, AZ USA
Posts: 4,000
You're missing some stuff with the G3.

The trigger is battle rifle spec. That's what you bought, that's what you get. However, changing that is as simple as pushing out two pins, rotating the selector to 12 o'clock and pulling. That's it and you can install a PSG-1 pack or a cleaned up William's Trigger Specialists pack.

The CETME, which is more accurately discribed as an HK cousin, has the oddly placed selector positions where up is semi. All HKs have up as safe.

The flute brush and chamber face brush make cleaning an HK significantly easier. I won't say it's as easy as a FAL, but certainly easier than the AR design.

Configurations. There is a vast number of configurations for the G3 and derrivatives. You can change the gripframe (and trigger groups), buttstock, and forearm with a push of a few spring loaded pins. What do you have to do to change from a sniper style stock, with adjustable cheekpiece, to a folding/retracting stock on the others?

G3 barrels are also floated.
__________________
God gave you a soul.
Your parents, a body.
Your country, a rifle.

Keep all of them clean.
Destructo6 is offline  
Old August 31, 2002, 09:27 AM   #4
Conformer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 5, 2001
Posts: 117
Sorry, the a real HK91 out of the box will outshoot all the mentioned ones above, Only a National Match M1A could beat it. Most HK91's have been known to shoot 1 MOA.
Conformer is offline  
Old August 31, 2002, 05:28 PM   #5
Sloan441
Member
 
Join Date: May 21, 2002
Posts: 54
G3 accuracy is usually exceptional. I've had experience with about 5 (2 my own and three friends' guns), and all easily shot 1.5 MOA, with the SR9T going 3/4 MOA on a regular basis.

Ergonomically, the G3 isn't all that, and it's trigger pull is easily the worst of the lot--unless you have a PSG1 group in it, then it's the best of the lot.

HK91 mags are probably the most durable, but cheap ones are looooooooong gone. G3 mags are still available and pretty reasonable. I prefer the G3; alloy=easy on the back.

Cleaning G3s is no fun. The locking roller recesses are just an iron-clad biotch to deal with. Otherwise, it's no sweat.

I had a NM M1A for a little while. Never shot it enough to really get a feel for it, but I did like it. Cleaning was no fun, but I wouldn't turn down another one...

FAL experience is all second hand. Overall, I'm pretty impressed with them. It'd be my first choice for a new battle rifle, if I didn't have my HK.

AR10. The less said the better.
Sloan441 is offline  
Old August 31, 2002, 06:04 PM   #6
Christopher II
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 22, 1999
Location: Germantown, MD
Posts: 2,349
Sorry? Why apologise?

If you happen to like the G3 series, if you have one and are happy with it, by all means keep it. The gun means a lot less than the shooter. But if you are looking to buy a new battle rifle I'd steer you away from the G3, again, based on my experience with the system.

- Chris
__________________
"There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him." – Robert Heinlein

"Contrary to popular belief, your vote does not matter, and you cannot make a difference." - Bob Murphy, "Picking Neither of Two Evils"

My PGP Public Key
Christopher II is offline  
Old August 31, 2002, 06:16 PM   #7
Watchman
Junior member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2000
Location: ARKANSAS
Posts: 484
My two cents....thats about all it worth...

Ive shot them all and I like them all.

ALL of them are accurate enough to hit a 9 inch diameter at 500-600 ,which I do fairly often.

I like the G-3 better than the FAL for one major reason. A full sized FAL is a LONG rifle. The G-3 is more compact.

Of all the FAL's I ve shot they all had just a bit of slop when the upper reciever was mated with the lower. Not a problem really, just more of a distraction, when you are looking through the sights and they move a bit because you've moved the "slop" some when you shoulder it. Compared to the FAL, the G-3 seems solid as a rock.

The FAL does seems a bit softer on the recoil than the G-3.

The G-3 has a better trigger that the FAL's ---on the ones Ive shot anyway.

I dearly love the M1A. It is accuarate enough at 600 yards that it gets rather boring to shoot at a 9 inch plate.

The trigger is good. The rifle is heavy. Escpecially with a scope and a bi-pob. Recoil is not a problem.

They are a bit pricey.

The AR-10 is an exellent rifle. As already mentioned, the magazines are way to expensive. They are a bit persnickety at times once they get a bit of crud in them.

Out of the 4, I'd say a tuned AR-10 would win in the accuracy dept. with the M1A coming in very close, close enough that the shooter there would make the difference.

The M1A mags usaully arent cheap either.

The FALS and G-3 that I've shot are about equal. It used to be that the FAL mags were cheaper, a few weeks ago I ordered 10 G-3 mags made by HK new in the wrap, aluminum for 6.95 each.

The parts guns that are coming in seem to be OK. Is one better than the other ? Hard to say without firing each individual gun.

At the range , we had all four out there at one time, along with a .308 AK.

We let everyone swap em out and shoot to their hearts content. Many hundreds( or perhaps thousands)or rounds later, everyone had their favorite for one reason of the other.

My personal favorites, for various reasons and looking at things from a SHTF scenario:

For precision shooting the AR-10, easier to tote than the M1A.
The M1A would be OK if you had a truck to tote it in.
I'd take the the G-3 for a pure dee battle rifle simply because its shorter and does exactly the same thing thing as a FAL, which can be cumbersome in a CQB situation or even firing from a vehicle.

For scoped weapons the Ar-10,M1A,FAL then the G-3 in that order.

Reliablity: G-3,FAL,M1A,Ar-10

I think we are blessed to have the opportunity to shoot and discuss the virtues of each one.

I think they are all great rifles and each one will do what it was meant to do.

To me its each his own. They all have strenths and weaknesses, and this debate is not any different than the the Ford vs. Chevy vs. Dodge thing.

I own a G-3 clone. I would like to own an AR-10 AND an M1A.
The only reason I dont own a FAL is because one of my goodfreinds and I occasionally swap out once in a while.My G-3 for his FAL.
Someday I ll get one.
Someday Ill have all 4.
Watchman is offline  
Old September 1, 2002, 03:21 PM   #8
Handy
Junior member
 
Join Date: August 31, 2001
Posts: 8,785
These comparisons are interesting, but do fall victim to what weapons the writer had access to. There are so many parts guns and half baked clones out there:

Most Cetmes Americans have tried are parts guns with recoil brakes. No kidding, they shoot soft. So do Fals with breaks.

G3 sights are not great accuracy sights, like the M1A, but they are easier to acquire.

The G3 and the Fal have more combat experience than the other two combined. The Fal's minor combat picadillos are well discussed. On the other hand, you don't hear much at all about the G3 in the field, because not much goes wrong with it. It's issued and liked from the artic circle through the Sahara to the jungles of Africa, Asia and South America. They tend to function well even if poorly maintained and are often rumored to be close to the AK in reliability. When they do finally jam, only the chamber has to be cleaned to return to function. They are can also be fired fast or full auto better than the M1A (without E2 stock).

I've had two Springfield Greek G3 rifles. 1 MOA accurate and shoots well in hot or cold, dirty or clean. You may have to spend $40 bucks on a Williams trigger job, though. OH NO!

The cheap G3 mags are still readily available.

My take:

Factory G3 (German, Greak, Portuguese): best all arounder for accuracy and reliability, out of the box. Clumsy, but proven. Claw mounts expensive, but do return to zero. Recoil can be lessened with different buffers. Clones a bad idea - see Fal.

AR10/SR25: can be the most accurate for the money. Expensive mags in either case. AR design doesn't lend itself to optics backed up with fixed sights. Dirty.

M1A: best mix of accuracy, cost, ergonomics and sights for Hi-Power type shooting. Some scope mounts problematic. Accuracy a result of fine tuning and money spent, rather than built in like the AR and G3.

Fal: best cheap clone. As long as the parts are close to spec, you'll get a decent battle rifle for half as much as anything else. A good start if it's got to be .308 and less than $1000. Least accurate, but not bad at all. Tuned DSA guns can be 1MOA.

Of the above list, only the FAL and G3 are often seen in the US in factory issued format. The M1A is an M14 copy with cast parts and there aren't too many original Armalite's around outside of Sudan. The modern AR10 is a reengineered copy that uses different mags and the SR25 is an improvement designed primarily for accuracy, not battle. Careful what you're comparing.
Handy is offline  
Old September 1, 2002, 10:02 PM   #9
Jamie Young
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Location: SE/PA
Posts: 4,834
Correia,
I find the M1A far more comfortable to shoot. I wish the FAL stock was wider and about 2inches longer. Your as tall as I am. Doesn't that bug you?

I'd have to say as far as fit and shouldering, for me, the M14 ranks 1st; followed by the AR10, FAL, and then G3. For combat, I'll take the FAL,M14,AR10 and then G3.
__________________
Find out about Gun Shows and Training activities.
www.TheRallyPoint.org
Get your gun club involved!!

Last edited by Jamie Young; September 1, 2002 at 10:24 PM.
Jamie Young is offline  
Old September 2, 2002, 04:22 PM   #10
MAD DOG
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 13, 1998
Location: Arizona.
Posts: 853
FWIW: I did the trigger work on BTP's Cetme.

I have owned and shot all of ther aforementioned weapons.
The ones I kept were the FAL and the HK91.
Why?
They are by far the most reilable and robust, work best when dirty, sandy, whatever, and have completely adequate accuracy (<1.5 MOA) for MBRs.
And that, after all, is what MBRs are all about.

The HK91 is impossible to beat for brute durability and overall robustness. Cleaning issues are minimal, as it requires cleaning so seldom.
The HK91 will shoot 1 MOA or better with the right ammo, and it is totally ammo insensitive when it comes to going BANG and then cycling. Even that crappy Venezualan stuff works. God knows where the Venezualan bullet will end up, but it does cycle.

There are several after market rear sights for the HK91. The Express Sights ghost ring version (formerly Ashley Outdoors) is the best of the lot, far better than the retarded drum sight the 91 comes with.
The only way to scope the 91 and be able to maintain a decent cheek weld is to braze some very low steel bases onto the receiver, then refinish the receiver. Use a scope with small eye piece and objective bells to minimize height off the receiver.
I am using a set of machined to fit Warne bases, Warne QD low rings, and a Leupold 1.75-6X Vari X III on mine. Perfect return to zero, and no overpriced alien insect looking saddle clamps to fuss with.
The "as issued" ergonomics could be better, but with the paddlle style mag release and a reworked custom safety lever, all is well.
The one overweaning shortcoming of the HK91 is that it is so damned nose heavy.

The FAL gets the nod for ergonomics and easy scope-ability.
Trigger mods are time consuming, but once accomplished, can render a very nice single stage trigger.
The adjustable gas system is a nice bonus, as cycling and accuracy can be tuned for various ammo.
The new DSA versions are excellent, and offer a lot of variants not available in other semi auto MBR weapons.

At my behest, DSA has recently switched to 1-10" twist barrels. The situation prompting this was the release of their new Medium Weight Tactical 16" barrel, which originally was offered with a 1-11" or 1-12" twist barrel. It refused to stabilize bullets over 147 grains, due to the short barrel and relatively slow twist for that barrel length.
Groups opened up from 1.25 MOA to over 4 MOA when switching from 147 gr Portugese ball to 168 grain match ammo.
Thankfully, John Milano at DSA listens, and made the switch.
The latest test weapons are on their way to me now.
One of the best possible FALs, or any other MBR for that matter, that I can envision would be the DSA Medium Weight Tactical with a PARA folding stock and a flash hider, topped with my favorite Leupold 1.75-6X vari X II on QD rings. All that, and a bag of chips, for sure.
Shown with fixed stock:

http://64.177.53.248/images/fal_all.jpg

http://64.177.53.248/images/fal_side.jpg

Look for my upcoming article in SWAT on these fine weapons.

The MIA has a beautiful "rifleman's trigger" and great iron sights, but sucks for scope mounting and dirt resistance. I also hate the way the safety is situated inside the trigger guard. Some may argue that the Winter Trigger cures this, but in plain fact, it only reduces the problem, it doesn't eliminate it.
The rollers on the bolt are very dirt sensitive, and the inboard/outboard op rod is a weak point in the design.
All in all, not enough redeeming features to ameliorate the shortcomings of the basic mechanical design.

The AR10 is a wonderfully ergonomic and very accurate alloy framed POS, subject to all of the usual AR series of problems, plus disgustingly over priced magazines. A gun suitable for use on rifle ranges and golf courses only. :barf:
__________________
BOYCOTT COSTCO!!
http://www.tacticalforums.com
MAD DOG is offline  
Old September 4, 2002, 10:19 AM   #11
Correia
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 3, 1998
Location: SLC Utah
Posts: 3,740
Soda, I have a longer stock on mine.
Correia is offline  
Old September 4, 2002, 10:21 AM   #12
Steve Smith
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 9, 1999
Posts: 4,131
Regarding the G3...

Does anyone else have their cheekbone bashed by the hump on the stock?
__________________
Favor the X.


Steve Smith
NRA Life Member
Steve Smith is offline  
Old September 4, 2002, 10:32 AM   #13
G3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 24, 2000
Location: Central Indiana
Posts: 138
Mad Dog,

Are your "Dog Bone" FAL recoil pads available yet?


Steve,

G3s/HK91s are well known to have their receivers bump your cheek bone during recoil.
G3 is offline  
Old September 4, 2002, 10:36 AM   #14
Jimmy Mac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 30, 2002
Posts: 688
It does not matter on a battle rifle if it will do 1MOA or 3 MOA.

What matters most of all is reliability in very bad conditions.

In my opinion this would put the AR series out of the picture for my use.

I think the M1a-M-14 is the very best battle rifle ever made. The FAL or Garand comes in second.

There is nothing wrong with the G-3 but I just don't like them. I agree that they are very good reliable rifles.
Jimmy Mac is offline  
Old September 4, 2002, 01:00 PM   #15
nandoaqui
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 9, 2002
Location: midwest
Posts: 113
My Two Cents About My Two Applicable Rifles:

1. DSA SA58 (close enough to a FAL to be included in this discusion?)
It hangs up (stove pipes, mostly) with several brands of ammo, and it may be about 2MOA at best. Mounting a scope on it is not too bad (at least with DSA extreme duty mount) but removing and replacing the mount is not straight-forward, so I just leave it on and clean around it (under it). Overall, I wish it were more accurate and less likely to malfunction.

2. H&K HK91
Easily 2MOA with Portuguese surplus, and close to 1-1/2MOA with expensive ammo.

It NEVER malfunctions - I don't care what I feed it. True, the empties land somewhere in the next county, but that's OK with me.

With its claw scope mount, I can very easily remove and replace the scope and it returns to zero well.

Some find the bolt difficult to disassemble to clean it, but after doing it a few times, I find it easy to do and prefer to clean it rather than the gas port and other parts of the FAL. (I have to admit - the HK91 bolt does get dirty!)

Of the two, if I had to choose, my choice would be the HK91 without hesitation.

Alex
nandoaqui is offline  
Old September 4, 2002, 01:34 PM   #16
T.Stahl
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 1, 2001
Location: near Stuttgart/Germany
Posts: 376
Quote:
Does anyone else have their cheekbone bashed by the hump on the stock?
No.
From my observations that seems to be a purely American problem.
T.Stahl is offline  
Old September 4, 2002, 02:20 PM   #17
B9mmHP
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 2, 2000
Location: Texas
Posts: 465
Battle Rifle ?

Scopes, National Match, Heavy Barrel, After Market stuff, Cost of Mags, Adjustable Gas System, MOA Accuracy, etc ?
Doesn`t sound like a battle rifle to me, just stick with the stock M1A/M14 no fancy crap add on stuff and then you will have a real battle rifle, learn how to use it and none of the rest will even come close.
B9mmHP is offline  
Old September 4, 2002, 02:26 PM   #18
Destructo6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 18, 1999
Location: Nogales, AZ USA
Posts: 4,000
Quote:
Does anyone else have their cheekbone bashed by the hump on the stock?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No.
From my observations that seems to be a purely American problem.
It's because many American shooters position their heads as though they were shooting the AR-15: one nose's distance from the rear sight. The proper melon position for the FAL & G3 is quite a bit further to the rear.
__________________
God gave you a soul.
Your parents, a body.
Your country, a rifle.

Keep all of them clean.
Destructo6 is offline  
Old September 4, 2002, 03:16 PM   #19
Nightcrawler
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 22, 2000
Location: Northern Michigan
Posts: 2,945
You know, I never liked that "nose-to-charging-handle" shooting stance. *shrug* Never used it, not even with my M16.
__________________
Nightcrawler- TFL Alumnus
Nightcrawler is offline  
Old September 4, 2002, 10:50 PM   #20
Dave R
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 7, 2000
Location: Idaho
Posts: 6,073
"Cleaning G3s is no fun. The locking roller recesses are just an iron-clad biotch to deal with. Otherwise, it's no sweat. "

The locking roller recesses are easy to clean with a toothbrush. I follow that up just by reaching in with my finger and a patch and wiping cleaning residue out. Then follow with finger/patch with lube of choice. Simple. Hmmm. I have long, skinny fingers. Others may have trouble getting in there?

And the fluted chamber cleans nicely with a .45 nylon brush. The nylon bristles can be reversed (back & forth), and that cleans the chamber nicely.
__________________
I am Pro-Rights (on gun issues).
Dave R is offline  
Old September 5, 2002, 06:27 AM   #21
JIH
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 11, 1999
Location: Houston, TX, USA
Posts: 963
Quote:
The proper melon position for the FAL & G3 is quite a bit further to the rear.
It's also proper position for an AR10. You don't want to go nose-to-handle with an AR10, especially one w/o ArmaLite's big recoil check. They don't recoil much, but it will smart if your nose is on the handle or if your eye is up close to the scope.
JIH is offline  
Old September 5, 2002, 10:10 AM   #22
Handy
Junior member
 
Join Date: August 31, 2001
Posts: 8,785
The HK sights work better a little further back as well: You should see the front sight ring touching the back sight hole all around, then you know they are concentric and aligned. It's a different sort of optical trick than using a small US style aperature sight.

" Battle Rifle ?

Scopes, National Match, Heavy Barrel, After Market stuff, Cost of Mags, Adjustable Gas System, MOA Accuracy, etc ?
Doesn`t sound like a battle rifle to me, just stick with the stock M1A/M14 no fancy crap add on stuff and then you will have a real battle rifle, learn how to use it and none of the rest will even come close. "

This is pretty much how I feel about the G3, except it's more reliable and the mags cost 1/10th of M1A mags. Or did you mean the M1 Garand?

As for add on fancy crap: S&K and other companies offer low scope mounts for the HK rifle that don't require brazing and refinishing.
Handy is offline  
Old September 6, 2002, 10:15 AM   #23
Hawaii
Member
 
Join Date: October 18, 2000
Posts: 18
Magazine

When I purchased my AR10tnc, I also purchased 20 magazine conversion kits at the costs of the 30 dollars per kit. I then went to the local gun show and bought 20 M1a magazines. I bought the cheapest ones I could find. From one table I bought 10 magazines of 25 dollars. These magazines were dented and unusable in an M1a but could be used for the conversion kits. I found 10 more that were in about the same conditions for a good price. Total cost per 20 round complete AR10 magazine was 42 dollars. Still costly but not near 100 dollars. (note to self buy more converstion kits and resell at higher price)

Reliabilty

I have a friend with a DSA (FAL) that thought the AR10 was not reliable, so while at the range we had a little competition. We used the dirtiest old ammunition we could find. We also used to some of the best reloads I could make. The end result after 250 rounds and no cleaning,

AR10 - one failure to feed

DSA – one failure to extract


Accuracy

We used Federal 168 Match ammunition, 3 round group.

AR10 - .52 @ 100 yards

DSA – 1.68 @ 100 yards



Cost of the Rifles

AR10 target Navy Carbine 1775.00

DSA (FAL) 1450.00


The real difference in cost is the fact that my AR10 is the target model. SS barrel, 2 stage trigger, and free floated.



End result. They both did great considering the fact we dropped all the ammunition in the dirt before we started. As for myself, I think I will stay with the AR10tnc. Some people say that AR10 is not a combat type rifle, I would disagree. Also during the Gulf War and my time in the Marines, I just got confortable with the AR. I will always keep my pre/ban AR-15's but the AR-10 just gives that extra kick.


Hawaii
Hawaii is offline  
Old September 6, 2002, 08:04 PM   #24
JIH
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 11, 1999
Location: Houston, TX, USA
Posts: 963
Another AR10 mag-cost workaround...

Yes it's a PITA to get/find new mags, but ArmaLite honors its 2 for 1 mag exchange program even with the el cheapo M14 mags. Still an expensive proposition, but if you must have 20 rounders, it's a less expensive way to go.
JIH is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.36095 seconds with 7 queries