Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Military Arms & History Forum' started by cycloneman, Feb 16, 2009.
Which one would you want in battle? Why?
I'd go with the 91.
I really like the HK operating system, although I'd take any of the 3 if you'd like to give me one.
The Garand/M-14 system ain't no slouch either other than the weight. 9 lbs. versus 11 lbs.
i dont know about the Fn but the HK type (clones) do not hold the bolt open on the last shot. That is something I would like to have.
I have to go with the M14. The M14's biggest flaw is full auto accuracy and personally I want a reliable and accurate battle rifle for primarily semi auto fire. Everything that is claimed about the AK47's reliability can be applied to the M14. It will function well in less than ideal weather and without being spotlessly clean. This rifle has been extensively field tested including being buried in sand and still functioned reliably. Some debate that point but I have personally used it and ALWAYS found it dependable. The FAL has a great record and is supposedly more controllable on full auto but from those I know with experience with them they can be finnicky.
HK91, not that I have any good experiences or anything... but out of those the only reliability I have researched and had experience with is H&K. This isn't so much a "out of those three guns that would be the one I want for free," rather... if you came to me and said tomorrow was the apocalypse and I could only have one of them... the H&K.
Good point Vlad.
having humped a m14 and also having a vast amount of experience with a fnfal i'd have to go with the fnfal ( right hand of the free world) easier to fire in full auto able to with stand massive amounts of abuse easy to field strip and parts are every where
For Battle and not for the range is how I'm going to answer.
With no gunsmith or can of spare parts at the ready.
I have or had owned all three, so here's my thoughts, without going into to much detail.
M14 is a nice weapon, Love the sights. The 14 will preform flawlessly with most ammo in the NATO 147ish gr. M1A on the other hand likes the rounds a little heavier 168 to 175. I would say the weak point of these systems are the op rod. Lots of metal flying around. And for my pocket book good USGI mags are a little pricey.
HK 91 not as sexy as the PSG1 but close enough, hard on brass and very finicky when it comes to the ammo it fires. In battle one doesn't have a choice on the ammo that is available. A rifle is not much good if the doesn't fed and eject.
FN FAL This rifle can be the greatest thing since slice bread or no better then a fence post. Just depends on the builder and the parts being used. Thankfully mine is of the first type. Any climate, any ammo, any distance it has preformed better then my expectations. Only weak point would be the many worn out mags on the market. Spend the extra money for new mags, it will make the difference.
I would go with the M14. The M21 systems were the sniper rifles the US Army used in Vietnam, with a lot of success. There were a lot of national records set with that weapon and the national championships at Camp Perry have been won with that rifle, against bolt guns.
FAL gets my vote.
I find it interesting that an HK 91 is grouped with M14's and FN FAL's. G3 intentionally left out or?
All three rifles are so heavy I wouldn't want any of them in battle.
The FAL is the superior design of those 3, but for some reason not always quality built with proper materials/workmanship.
Without time to thoroughly check out that last thought, or margin to undue acquiring a lemon....I'd play safe and use an M14...they are at least consistent.
Off the list, H&K 417 has them all beat if it must be a 7.62mm NATO and you are determined to hump a 9lb-10lb bullet launcher.
Can't I just have a 6lb M4???
Light is right.
The original question was framed for 'battle rifles' or at least that is what I gathered from it. A 7.62 would fall under the guidelines of 'battle rifle' whereas a 5.56 is not. You can play all day long with a M4 but it is defined as an 'Assault Rifle'.
Also, after humping a 16lb bolt gun in the unforgiving Chihuahuan Desert of West Texas, a 9 to 10lb rifle in nothing but a thang.
Disregard before edit. I found the definition. Battle rifle= above interm cartridges etc.
Slap 60lbs of gear on with those 10 lb "battle rifles" and hump it 25 miles tonight then get back with me.