Best Rifle #3
Forgive me for not responding more on the post, I am trying to restrict my comments to keep from triggering the 10 count before it locks.
But I want to thank everyone again for their input.
This post brought to my attention;
AR10 A2, I could not find an A2 on GB. However Google fixed that.
DPMS LR
L1A1
LaRue OBR or LT 762-16M1A/M14
M1A/M14
The M1A/M14 with the lite stock and short is a good option.
Also the M1A SOCOM 16 with synthetic stock.
LT 762 got my attention a little bit but there is only one on GB web at $3800.
Question:
Can a person purchase a pre-ban select fire in any of the weapons already mentioned or others that are in the arena of what I'm looking at that 3800 price range?
If so please recommend.
I tried searching under Class III on GB but got more confused.
But I want to thank everyone again for their input.
This post brought to my attention;
AR10 A2, I could not find an A2 on GB. However Google fixed that.
DPMS LR
L1A1
LaRue OBR or LT 762-16M1A/M14
M1A/M14
The M1A/M14 with the lite stock and short is a good option.
Also the M1A SOCOM 16 with synthetic stock.
LT 762 got my attention a little bit but there is only one on GB web at $3800.
Question:
Can a person purchase a pre-ban select fire in any of the weapons already mentioned or others that are in the arena of what I'm looking at that 3800 price range?
If so please recommend.
I tried searching under Class III on GB but got more confused.
0
-
I posted a couple previous times with questions on best battle rifle.
I received great recommendations. The one that kept coming up was the M1. I have to admit I was attracted to the COOL factor of SCAR, LWRC REPR and various other rifles over the M1. However with research I am learning there is a whole world of fit in stocks with all kinds of useful features available.
So now I am on the M1 band wagon but have some foundation needs.
What is the difference in M1, M1A, and M1A/M14?
There seems to be several armories' that build and modify these from the ground up. You can send them a gun or seems like they have them already built.
Looking for 308 or 7.62.
Replies or questions welcome.0 -
Well what an M1 is will depend on what M1 you are talking about;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1
M1 Abrams, a tank
M1 bayonet, as fitted to the M1 Garand
M1 carbine
M1 chemical mine
M1 Combat Car, an early tank
M1 Garand, a battle rifle
M1 Helmet
M1 mortar
M1 rocket launcher, a bazooka variant
M1 Thompson carbine
M1 Thompson submachine gun
Mk 1 Underwater Defense Gun, an underwater pistol
120 mm M1 gun, an anti-aircraft gun
Benelli M1 Super 90, a semi-automatic shotgun
Bristol M.1, a 1916 British monoplane fighter aircraft
HMS M1, an early submarine and one of the few submarines equipped with a capital-calibre gun
M115 howitzer, also known as the "8-in Howitzer M1"
Guncrafter Industries Model No. 1, a handgun
A M1A is a Springfield Armory brand semi auto M14, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1A_rifle
A M14 is either a semi auto (made by companies other then SA) or full auto box fed NATO .30 caliber rifle, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M14_rifle0 -
While the US Government has built & repaired firearms at their own armories for almost 200 years, repairs are now done at arsenals. Do not be impressed by a private company that has "armory" in their name, it's just a word.
Having said that, Fulton Armory (a small shop in a warehouse) has really informative website that I think will answer most of your questions.
Neal
President & CEO
Neal Armory, Inc.0 -
Now I know the M1A is the civilian version of the M14.
I am amazed with the aftermarket applications for this auto.
Also thanks for the tip on arsenals.
I did find good info on the Fulton Armory.
I have to admit I am getting sucked into the WANT of all the accessories.
I have to throttle back a bit.
But with that said here are two links to GB web of items I have found.
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=164819305
and
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=165032058
These are a bit over the top.
While having more than I need there are some things I would like to have that they don't have.
Seems by the time I buy an M1A/M14 that is short as possible, new style pistol grip, adjustable stock/cheek, lightweight material with trigger modification and rails there is understandably good money on the table, deserved money.
So the point.forgive me, the question is, at this price range why wouldn't a guy want to look at modern day guns like SCAR 17s or XM8, etc.?
No I don't know where a SCAR 17s is for sale nor do I know how much they will ask.
From what I have read $5k ish would be a guess.
If that is a good guess that is awful close to the ones linked in this message.
I hope I am not wearing out my welcome with these questions.
I have learned a lot up to this point and many thanks.0 -
You are not wearing out your welcome, at least not with me. Your questions are all valid and we have plenty of folks around here who can answer them. Based on the links you are showing us you are interested in a rifle with far more bells and whistles than the M1 Garand can satisfy, which is a shame because the entry price for a good M1 is not all that much money and you get what is probably the only true battle proven full size .30 caliber automatic rifle issued in large numbers. FN sold hundreds of thousands of FAL rifles and their total time in combat amounted to about three weeks: The Six Day War (where the FAL was found wanting) and two weeks of fighting in the Falkland Islands. The HK G-3 was used even less: A few skirmishes in some brush wars in Africa and that was the end of that. The M1 made it through WWII in every theater (including dust, heat, rain, snow, mud) and then came back for another tour in Korea (dust, heat, rain, snow and mud again). I think you'd be well served with an M1A type rifle but if you insist on having all of the fancy rail mounts, synthetic custom retractable stocks, and the rest of the add ons you are off in a totally different direction. 0 -
The FAL/L1A1 also saw action during Vietnam, various parts of Africa, Yugoslavia, Croatia, *3* conflicts in Israel (Suez, 6 day war, Yom Kippur war).
Over 90 countries issue/issued the FN-FAL or L1A1 or variants... The Right Arm of the Free World.
quote:Originally posted by mark christian
You are not wearing out your welcome, at least not with me. Your questions are all valid and we have plenty of folks around here who can answer them. Based on the links you are showing us you are interested in a rifle with far more bells and whistles than the M1 Garand can satisfy, which is a shame because the entry price for a good M1 is not all that much money and you get what is probably the only true battle proven full size .30 caliber automatic rifle issued in large numbers. FN sold hundreds of thousands of FAL rifles and their total time in combat amounted to about three weeks: The Seven Day War (where the FAL was found wanting) and two weeks of fighting in the Falkland Islands. The HK G-3 was used even less: A few skirmishes in some brush wars in Africa and that was the end of that. The M1 made it through WWII in every theater (including dust, heat, rain, snow, mud) and then came back for another tour in Korea (dust, heat, rain, snow and mud again). I think you'd be well served with an M1A type rifle but if you insist on having all of the fancy rail mounts, synthetic custom retractable stocks, and the rest of the add ons you are off in a totally different direction.0 -
quote:Originally posted by iwannausername
The FAL/L1A1 also saw action during Vietnam, various parts of Africa, Yugoslavia, Croatia, *3* conflicts in Israel (Suez, 6 day war, Yom Kippur war).
Over 90 countries issue/issued the FN-FAL or L1A1 or variants... The Right Arm of the Free World.
quote:Originally posted by mark christian
You are not wearing out your welcome, at least not with me. Your questions are all valid and we have plenty of folks around here who can answer them. Based on the links you are showing us you are interested in a rifle with far more bells and whistles than the M1 Garand can satisfy, which is a shame because the entry price for a good M1 is not all that much money and you get what is probably the only true battle proven full size .30 caliber automatic rifle issued in large numbers. FN sold hundreds of thousands of FAL rifles and their total time in combat amounted to about three weeks: The Seven Day War (where the FAL was found wanting) and two weeks of fighting in the Falkland Islands. The HK G-3 was used even less: A few skirmishes in some brush wars in Africa and that was the end of that. The M1 made it through WWII in every theater (including dust, heat, rain, snow, mud) and then came back for another tour in Korea (dust, heat, rain, snow and mud again). I think you'd be well served with an M1A type rifle but if you insist on having all of the fancy rail mounts, synthetic custom retractable stocks, and the rest of the add ons you are off in a totally different direction.
The FN-FAl, and L1A1, are for those who want a battle rifle, and can't afford a real one. How many FAL's do you see being pulled out of mothballs, and sent over to the sandbox? If the FAL was any good, they wouldn't need the M14's over there.
Best0 -
quote:Originally posted by tsr1965
quote:Originally posted by iwannausername
The FAL/L1A1 also saw action during Vietnam, various parts of Africa, Yugoslavia, Croatia, *3* conflicts in Israel (Suez, 6 day war, Yom Kippur war).
Over 90 countries issue/issued the FN-FAL or L1A1 or variants... The Right Arm of the Free World.
quote:Originally posted by mark christian
You are not wearing out your welcome, at least not with me. Your questions are all valid and we have plenty of folks around here who can answer them. Based on the links you are showing us you are interested in a rifle with far more bells and whistles than the M1 Garand can satisfy, which is a shame because the entry price for a good M1 is not all that much money and you get what is probably the only true battle proven full size .30 caliber automatic rifle issued in large numbers. FN sold hundreds of thousands of FAL rifles and their total time in combat amounted to about three weeks: The Six Day War (where the FAL was found wanting) and two weeks of fighting in the Falkland Islands. The HK G-3 was used even less: A few skirmishes in some brush wars in Africa and that was the end of that. The M1 made it through WWII in every theater (including dust, heat, rain, snow, mud) and then came back for another tour in Korea (dust, heat, rain, snow and mud again). I think you'd be well served with an M1A type rifle but if you insist on having all of the fancy rail mounts, synthetic custom retractable stocks, and the rest of the add ons you are off in a totally different direction.
The FN-FAl, and L1A1, are for those who want a battle rifle, and can't afford a real one. How many FAL's do you see being pulled out of mothballs, and sent over to the sandbox? If the FAL was any good, they wouldn't need the M14's over there.
Best
There are always a few FAL defenders out there [;)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by mark christian
quote:Originally posted by tsr1965
quote:Originally posted by iwannausername
The FAL/L1A1 also saw action during Vietnam, various parts of Africa, Yugoslavia, Croatia, *3* conflicts in Israel (Suez, 6 day war, Yom Kippur war).
Over 90 countries issue/issued the FN-FAL or L1A1 or variants... The Right Arm of the Free World.
quote:Originally posted by mark christian
You are not wearing out your welcome, at least not with me. Your questions are all valid and we have plenty of folks around here who can answer them. Based on the links you are showing us you are interested in a rifle with far more bells and whistles than the M1 Garand can satisfy, which is a shame because the entry price for a good M1 is not all that much money and you get what is probably the only true battle proven full size .30 caliber automatic rifle issued in large numbers. FN sold hundreds of thousands of FAL rifles and their total time in combat amounted to about three weeks: The Six Day War (where the FAL was found wanting) and two weeks of fighting in the Falkland Islands. The HK G-3 was used even less: A few skirmishes in some brush wars in Africa and that was the end of that. The M1 made it through WWII in every theater (including dust, heat, rain, snow, mud) and then came back for another tour in Korea (dust, heat, rain, snow and mud again). I think you'd be well served with an M1A type rifle but if you insist on having all of the fancy rail mounts, synthetic custom retractable stocks, and the rest of the add ons you are off in a totally different direction.
The FN-FAl, and L1A1, are for those who want a battle rifle, and can't afford a real one. How many FAL's do you see being pulled out of mothballs, and sent over to the sandbox? If the FAL was any good, they wouldn't need the M14's over there.
Best
There are always a few FAL defenders out there [;)]
I hate to break it to you boys but initially the FN-FAL was chosen over the M14. Because it did better in the trials. It was then decided we needed an American rifle. So we went with an improved M14. No wrong done there I think.
I appreciate all three types. I also personally felt we wouldn't have gone wrong if we had gone back to the M1/M1A type action. But, we certainly could have done a lot better than the M16 by going to the FN-FAL in some of the rounds originally developed for it years ago. FTM, the .276 Pederson is sort of being 'rediscovered'. Same with the G-3. I've carried all three in training and fired all three extensively. They are all good rifles. If Silver Star wants to put all the T/T-MODs he can, so be it. As long as it's functional for the way he wants it.0 -
quote:Originally posted by tsr1965
The FN-FAl, and L1A1, are for those who want a battle rifle, and can't afford a real one. How many FAL's do you see being pulled out of mothballs, and sent over to the sandbox? If the FAL was any good, they wouldn't need the M14's over there.
Well, to be Devil's advocate here, since it was never an American-issued weapon, there are no American FALs in mothballs to be pulled out!
As they say, you have to go to war with the army you have, not the one you wish you had. . .and that includes hardware!
The fact that m14s are being reissued now almost certainly has more to do with expediency rather than relative utility. In other words, the gun is "good enough" and its easy for the US military to re-field a weapon its already fielded, since all the operating procedures, maintenance, repair, manuals, etc are done. No contracts have to be bid, nothing has to be acquired. If you want to field the gun, all you do is pull a bunch out of a rack somewhere, and ship them off.
In contrast, if you want to issue a NEW weapon system, that requires years of expensive comparison testing, contract bidding, new manuals of arms be written, new training procedures, working out any kinks, etc. Even if there are better guns out there to be bought, getting them into service is a gigantic PITA.
If you want to ask this sort of question, I think the better question is, "are there any military groups on the planet issuing NEW M14s for combat use?".
Answer. . .so far as I know, there are not.
There was a recent article in SWAT magazine called "Slaying the Sacred Cow". . .I think its actually THIS MONTHS (April 2010) issue. . . about the M14 where the author (who IIRC was someone with relevant military experience) concluded, essentially, that the M14 was a reasonable design for its day, but its since been eclipsed by better modern designs. Unfortunately, I don't have the article handy, but if I remember right, the author cited several major factors why the M14 guns fall behind:
-Stock guns are just not that accurate. Yeah, you can do the whole match thing to accurize them, but that's not practical for field-issue guns.
-Relative difficulty in mounting optics and other accessories.
-Generally poor ergonomics from 1930s-based Garand design, including safety that is too close to trigger.
-Heavy as heck!
I'm not going to say that the M14/M1a is a BAD gun, only that there well may be better choices out there nowadays.0 -
quote:Originally posted by beantownshootah
quote:Originally posted by tsr1965
The FN-FAl, and L1A1, are for those who want a battle rifle, and can't afford a real one. How many FAL's do you see being pulled out of mothballs, and sent over to the sandbox? If the FAL was any good, they wouldn't need the M14's over there.
Well, to be Devil's advocate here, since it was never an American-issued weapon, there are no American FALs in mothballs to be pulled out!
As they say, you have to go to war with the army you have, not the one you wish you had. . .and that includes hardware!
The fact that m14s are being reissued now almost certainly has more to do with expediency rather than relative utility. In other words, the gun is "good enough" and its easy for the US military to re-field a weapon its already fielded, since all the operating procedures, maintenance, repair, manuals, etc are done. No contracts have to be bid, nothing has to be acquired. If you want to field the gun, all you do is pull a bunch out of a rack somewhere, and ship them off.
In contrast, if you want to issue a NEW weapon system, that requires years of expensive comparison testing, contract bidding, new manuals of arms be written, new training procedures, working out any kinks, etc. Even if there are better guns out there to be bought, getting them into service is a gigantic PITA.
If you want to ask this sort of question, I think the better question is, "are there any military groups on the planet issuing NEW M14s for combat use?".
Answer. . .so far as I know, there are not.
There was a recent article in SWAT magazine called "Slaying the Sacred Cow". . .I think its actually THIS MONTHS (April 2010) issue. . . about the M14 where the author (who IIRC was someone with relevant military experience) concluded, essentially, that the M14 was a reasonable design for its day, but its since been eclipsed by better modern designs. Unfortunately, I don't have the article handy, but if I remember right, the author cited several major factors why the M14 guns fall behind:
-Stock guns are just not that accurate. Yeah, you can do the whole match thing to accurize them, but that's not practical for field-issue guns.
-Relative difficulty in mounting optics and other accessories.
-Generally poor ergonomics from 1930s-based Garand design, including safety that is too close to trigger.
-Heavy as heck!
I'm not going to say that the M14/M1a is a BAD gun, only that there well may be better choices out there nowadays.
Bean,
You cant expect a battle rifle to weigh as much as your S&W 340PD [8D][:D]
In defense of re-fielding a weapon...my friend, we are talking about GENERATIONS after it was retired, so it is not like everyone out there is familiar with it. For familiarity, they would have been better off, fielding the AR-10...like the DPMS.
Best0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
11 comments