Looking for advice, input on MBR choice

[brokedownbiker]

I've started looking around at the choices for a new rifle for my primary SHTF rifle, I've been satisfied with my AR and my AK (I know, I know...there can be only one!) for years but I have always had a hankering for a rifle that fires a 'full sized' cartridge, my preferred would be in 7.62x51mm (.308) and semi-auto with detachable magazine, no bolt action rifles.

After some head-scratching, pondering, and serious thought, I have narrowed it down to either the M1A/M14 from SA or one of the PTR-91 models.


I considered the AR rifles in 7.62 but ended up rejecting them due to a lack of uniformity in the manufacturers making parts problematic and the fact that the big rifle has never, to my knowledge, been tested in any large scale military environment. I guess it could be assumed that it would fare as well as the AR in 5.56 but I hate to bet my life on an assumption.

So..... thoughts, comments, advice from the knowledgeable crew here? I'm looking forward to hearing what you think about these choices.

[protus]

The prt's a re good rifles. But , 762 aint cheap these days. There is also a tonof parts for the ptr's . Another may be the FAL. cost is about the same.

but imho it'd be between the m1a and the ptr for me.

[1Admin]

I've owned an original HK91 and own an M1A.

NEITHER were/are reliable enough for me to consider first choice guns.

The M1A came new from the factory where it would triple fire on match ammo. Had a little photocopied magazine article in the box about that happening when I purchased it. Factory acted like that was par for the course. I asked them why TH would someone buy the gun then if it wouldn't shoot match?

Also jammed with surplus ammo, Cavim I believe was the name, again right out the box new. Sent it to SA and they sent it back with a note about changing the barrel the headspacing was wrong or something....

It did the same things again after the "fix."

I still have it, cause I needed something semi in .308 and it's operation (mag and bolt) are identical to the AK so helpful for manipulation memory. Got my ACOG on it for the last couple years and if you can't hit at 300 regularly with it, your blind.

Stick with the GI mags or the better quality Thermold mags, the generics aren't worth messing with IMO. My M1A functions best with nice, new expensive .308....

[xdpatriot]

I've owned an original HK91 and own an M1A.

NEITHER were/are reliable enough for me to consider first choice guns.

The M1A came new from the factory where it would triple fire on match ammo. Had a little photocopied magazine article in the box about that happening when I purchased it. Factory acted like that was par for the course. I asked them why TH would someone buy the gun then if it wouldn't shoot match?

Also jammed with surplus ammo, Cavim I believe was the name, again right out the box new. Sent it to SA and they sent it back with a note about changing the barrel the headspacing was wrong or something....

It did the same things again after the "fix."

I still have it, cause I needed something semi in .308 and it's operation (mag and bolt) are identical to the AK so helpful for manipulation memory. Got my ACOG on it for the last couple years and if you can't hit at 300 regularly with it, your blind.

Stick with the GI mags or the better quality Thermold mags, the generics aren't worth messing with IMO. My M1A functions best with nice, new expensive .308....

I agree with the comment on the mags. I've got a SA M1A with the SAGE chassis. It's a great gun, functions exceptionally well and is accurate. But I'd think about weight in a BR before I'd go with 7.62 (unless it's an AK) M1As and AR10s are fatties to be carrying. A stripped down AR in 5.56 is gonna be lighter, but of course, youre losing knock down power. Ive already got ARs in 5.56 as our MBRs, so I've got plenty of 5.56 ammo. If I was starting over and gonna buy ammo, I'd go with an AR in a 6.8. The ballistics are better, IMO, than a 5.56, but the round and rifle are still tolerable weight wise. The only draw back is stocking more than plenty of ammo. 6.8s not exactly a common caliber. My 2cents.

[rice paddy daddy]

I went on past experience. My Army basic training rifle was an M14, as was my stateside issue weapon. I was issued an M16A1 for my all expense paid trip to The Land Of Excitement (aka Vietnam).
Today I'm the owner of a SA M1A that was manufactured in 1994 and is built with USGI parts. I can not speak to late model M1A's, but the older ones are rock solid and dependable. The only accessories I have added to mine are a Vietnam era web sling and an issue M6 bayonet. Other than the receiver, she's just exactly like the ones I was issued so long ago.
FWIW - I also own several WWII era military surplus rifles and even a Romanian AK but have not the slightest desire to own an AR of any brand/caliber/type. Not that they are inherently bad rifles, or anything, I just don't have the desire to own one.

[Grand58742]

Having owned both the PTR-91 and the M1A, I can say I prefer the handiness of the PTR over the M1A (it's slightly shorter) however, the trigger on the M1A is superior. Mag swaps on the PTR get interesting while the M1A is relatively simple. Balance tends to favor the PTR. Spare mag prices favor the PTR. Accuracy for normal folks is a dead tie as is round count. Taking apart the bolt on a PTR...oh, that's fun, so disassembly favors the M1A. Weight runs about the same on both before adding in optics and whatnot. Price favors the PTR-91 by a good margin.

But as Protus said, the price for 7.62 ammo, even surplus (of which a lot is suspect like the Indian...don't ever buy Indian 7.62 surplus) is going to bite especially if you are looking for stockpiles in large quantities. And weight with an optic on both is going to start at 11 pounds and go up from there like XD said and it's a fatty to be hauling around lol.

It pretty much comes down to personal choice. But me? If I had it all to do over and didn't buy everything that went bang the first time around? I'd take a hard look at the AR platform in 7.62. While it's true they haven't been used by any major armed forces, they have seen limited use over the lifespan of the AR10 dating back to the 60s and generally have been liked by those who used them. I would pick an AR10 over the above two especially in recent years as the platform has come leaps and bounds. But that's also because I have come to prefer the ergonomics of the AR since I'm most comfortable with that platform. You have parts commonality with the AR15 on a lot of items and most (excluding the piston 7.62 versions) operate on the same DGI principle and parts between manufacturers can generally be swapped without problems. You have two different mag types, the original Armalite pattern and the newer Knights pattern. Most AR10 style rifles fall into one or the other.

This isn't a plug for the AR10, just a personal choice after "growing up" and finding what I liked. If I didn't have a lot invested in my M1A, this is probably the route I'd go. Might still depending on a lot of circumstances, but overall, don't discount the AR10 based on the fact it was never in widespread adoption. Remember, historically it was in competition with the FAL, the G3 and the M14 and was a fairly radical design for the time. And it needed some time to work out the bugs in the system before it became utterly reliable which unfortunately didn't happen during the M14 testing. Also politics played and the USG was going to buy the M14 come hell or high water even over the FAL which was being used by the majority of our allies at the time. And we ended up swapping over to the M16 less than 10 years after adoption as we found the M14 to be unsuitable for the warfare we were fighting at the time...sounds familiar doesn't it lol

Personally? if you are looking for a main battle rifle with a full sized cartridge, I wouldn't discount the AR10 platform. But when it comes down to it, it all will depend on personal preference.

[rice paddy daddy]

Depending on the age of your eyes, optics on an M1A are optional. In '67-'68 qualification (firing for record) with the M14 was done on pop-up silouhette targets ranging from 50 meters to 500 meters using the iron sights that came on the rifle. I qualified Expert twice with two different well used M14's. That is not a testament to my skill, but a testament to the rifles.
When I fired for record with the M16A1, if I remember correctly, the farthest targets were either 325 or 350 meters. Iron sights also.

[Grinnan Barrett]

I own both the Springfield M1A in National Match and a custom built PTR 91 with all HK parts including the barrel. The first thing I would tell you is I built the PTR for my son. The ergonomics of the HK/Cetme/PTRs is not good. It is an accurate gun but I really prefer the Springfield. As was mentioned above parts are still available for the PTR from places like HK.net and from RTG in AZ but they are expensive now. Also one thing you need to know is your brass will be heavily scored by the chamber of the PTR. It literally groves the brass as it is fired an extracted. Looks like stripes along the body of the brass.

Since the cost is about the same go with the Springfield. GB

[rvans]

FN/FAL love mine. Parts are avilable and they are built to last. Check out Old dirty

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3pFWU54skA

[kihnspiracy]

Try the Sig 716. Gas piston, railed fore end, flip down front and rear sights, uses P-mags. Accurate and most important, easy to mount an optic to.