Which .308 Platform?

[The Annoyed Man]

Thanks to those who have responded and voted.

I think I am going to go the M1A route. But I'm gonna try to kill two birds with one stone, have something capable of filling the rugged battle rifle role if need be but also used it for F Class shooting.

Of the M1A options, Loaded, National Match and Super Match, for an F Class competition rifle, would these be good choices and between the three, to quote Hillary, "what difference does it make", besides price.

Also, how much of a hassle is it to mount optics on an M1A. I know there are mounting options but I was wondering if any one had practical experience using an M1A with optics setup for F class competition.

Here is what my M1A was like:




It was a "Loaded" model. I added a Sadlak scope mount, an SWFA 10x42HD fixed power mil-dot scope, a Karsten's adjustable cheek rest, and a short rail/sling swivel combination, to accommodate a Harris bipod. The "Loaded" model comes with a National Match trigger, a medium weight 1:11 National Match barrel, and National Match front and rear sights.

The best groups I ever got out of it were .5" at 100 yards, but those were the exception rather than the rule. More often, my group sizes with this rifle were in the 1" to 1.5". On the other hand, my son has a "Loaded" model, in all other respects the same as mine with the exception of a stainless barrel, and the stock having been swapped out for a Sage chassis (it's in the images I previously posted in this thread). I watched him shoot a 3 round group a couple of weeks ago, with all three holes touching at 200 yards. Otherwise, his M1A is roughly as accurate as mine was. So I know from experience that while an M1A Loaded is occasionally capable of extremely good accuracy, but is more reliably capable of "pretty darn good for a battle rifle" accuracy. As AndyC testified earlier in this thread, his FAL (an excellent rifle which entertained me enormously one afternoon) is a 3-4 MOA rifle. So 1-1.5 MOA out of an M1A Loaded is very good for a battle rifle. From a standard M1A, you can probably expect on the order of 2-2.5 MOA, and out of a Super Match, you can probably expect .5-1 MOA. Keep in mind that the Super Match is a bit heavier than the others by virtue of a fatter wood stock, and a heavy profile barrel, unlike the medium profile of a Loaded model, or the standard profile barrel.

Mating rear mounted optics to a full-sized M1A is a regular PIA, as the gun's receiver was never originally designed to accept a scope. So, unless you're dead set on the 22" barrel and a traditional rifle scope, you might want to consider alternatives. Personally, if I were going to buy another M1A today, I would pick the Scout Squad model, with it's 18" barrel, and a factory-installed forward mounted rail.

I would keep the iron sights, install an XS front sight post w/ Tritium Insert (comes as OEM front sight on the Socom 16 model), and put an Aimpoint RDS on that forward rail. I like the extra 2" of barrel just for velocity reasons over the 16" rifle, as a good compromise between the carbine-length 16" and full-length 22" barrels. However, neither of the shorter rifles would be even legal, if I recall, for F class competition.

Hope this helps.

[ghostrider]

FN FAL
Am I too late to vote?

[MechAg94]

I voted M1A because that is what I am used to and I think they are better overall than a typical AR10. The Springfield SOCOM 16 I have is a very handy rifle with the shorter barrel. Also, think some of the newer M1A's from Springfield are using a better optics mount to make it easier to mounts scopes.

I have never fired a SCAR or a FAL. I do want to at some point.

[drjoker]

You left out the best .308 rifle ever made, the Kel-Tec RFB. It's kinda out of my budget, but if I had an unexpected windfall of cash, that's what I would get. It is semi-auto and the long barrel version will get you 1 MOA out to 700 yards. With specialized ammo and skill, it can shoot accurately out to 1000 yards. It uses standard FAL magazines.

The long barrel target version has a whopping 32 inch barrel but it is still 4.3 inches shorter than the FAL, which has a 21 inch barrel. The FAL shoots the identical cartridge, the .308.

If you want .308 power in a tiny package, the carbine model has an 18 inch barrel and is 26 inches in length, which is about the length of an Uzi with the folding stock extended. The carbine is less accurate than the long barrel target model, though.

[The Annoyed Man]

You left out the best .308 rifle ever made, the Kel-Tec RFB. It's kinda out of my budget, but if I had an unexpected windfall of cash, that's what I would get. It is semi-auto and the long barrel version will get you 1 MOA out to 700 yards. With specialized ammo and skill, it can shoot accurately out to 1000 yards. It uses standard FAL magazines.

The long barrel target version has a whopping 32 inch barrel but it is still 4.3 inches shorter than the FAL, which has a 21 inch barrel. The FAL shoots the identical cartridge, the .308.

If you want .308 power in a tiny package, the carbine model has an 18 inch barrel and is 26 inches in length, which is about the length of an Uzi with the folding stock extended. The carbine is less accurate than the long barrel target model, though.

The RFB suffers from the same malady as all other bullpup designs: "Bullpup Trigger". They are so bad that they would never make an accurate long range gun.

If you have RFB money, buy a FN SCAR 17S, which right out of the box shoots sub-MOA (I know it because I've done it with mine, shooting remanufactured 168 grain match), then drop in a Timney or Geissele trigger, and legitimately shoot sub-MOA out to 800 yards......with a 16" barrel. The FN comes with a proprietary FN barrel with polygonal rifling and a 1:12 twist, and it will shoot that tight using bulk 147 grain FMJ.......which a friend of mine is doing regularly on the 800 yard line at ETTS. Modern FN barrels are legendary for their quality. And, when you fold the stock, it's only 2" longer than the RFB, and weighs .1 lbs less than an RFB. And, there's a larger aftermarket for it. No 16" barreled RFB will perform like a SCAR 17, and unless they have a fix for the OEM bullpup trigger, no amount of barrel is going to make it more accurate.

But, neither rifle were within the OP's budget.

[drjoker]

What is "bullpup trigger"? I've actually never shot a bullpup rifle before.

You left out the best .308 rifle ever made, the Kel-Tec RFB. It's kinda out of my budget, but if I had an unexpected windfall of cash, that's what I would get. It is semi-auto and the long barrel version will get you 1 MOA out to 700 yards. With specialized ammo and skill, it can shoot accurately out to 1000 yards. It uses standard FAL magazines.

The long barrel target version has a whopping 32 inch barrel but it is still 4.3 inches shorter than the FAL, which has a 21 inch barrel. The FAL shoots the identical cartridge, the .308.

If you want .308 power in a tiny package, the carbine model has an 18 inch barrel and is 26 inches in length, which is about the length of an Uzi with the folding stock extended. The carbine is less accurate than the long barrel target model, though.

The RFB suffers from the same malady as all other bullpup designs: "Bullpup Trigger". They are so bad that they would never make an accurate long range gun.

If you have RFB money, buy a FN SCAR 17S, which right out of the box shoots sub-MOA (I know it because I've done it with mine, shooting remanufactured 168 grain match), then drop in a Timney or Geissele trigger, and legitimately shoot sub-MOA out to 800 yards......with a 16" barrel. The FN comes with a proprietary FN barrel with polygonal rifling and a 1:12 twist, and it will shoot that tight using bulk 147 grain FMJ.......which a friend of mine is doing regularly on the 800 yard line at ETTS. Modern FN barrels are legendary for their quality. And, when you fold the stock, it's only 2" longer than the RFB, and weighs .1 lbs less than an RFB. And, there's a larger aftermarket for it. No 16" barreled RFB will perform like a SCAR 17, and unless they have a fix for the OEM bullpup trigger, no amount of barrel is going to make it more accurate.

But, neither rifle were within the OP's budget.

[Pawpaw]

What is "bullpup trigger"? I've actually never shot a bullpup rifle before.

A bullpup puts the chamber back in the stock, just about where your cheek rests. The firing mechanism, of necessity, has to be behind the chamber. This means it requires a long rod, or some other mechanism, to reach back from the trigger's new location (forward of the chamber) to the firing mechanism. This introduces additional friction and flexing between the two.

As a result, bullpups are notorious for having "mushy" triggers with an unpredictable break point, thus the nickname "bullpup trigger".

[The Annoyed Man]

What is "bullpup trigger"? I've actually never shot a bullpup rifle before.

Because bullpups as a breed put the trigger well forward of the action, there tends to be a lot of slop and lack of precision in the connection from the trigger shoe to the sear/hammer. That translates as a spongy or mushy, not very precise trigger. Add to that the fact that a lot of bullpups have trigger weights in the 6-8 lb range, and it's just not nearly as good a trigger as even the "OEM" AR trigger. WRT the RFB specifically, I have seen mixed reviews. GunBlast for instance said it was the best bullpup trigger they had fired to date......but that is relative. But other reviewers have called it spongy and heavy. So, maybe it's good.......for a bullpup.....but that's still not as good as a stock AR trigger. And stock AR triggers aren't that good compared to say, a bolt rifle or a good over and under shotgun. They're just not as bad as some other modern sporting rifles. Fortunately, it is pretty easy to tune a stock AR trigger to make it into something pretty decent, and $225 or so will get you a nice drop in Timney or Geissele trigger to replace it.

It's not to say that "bullpup trigger" makes the weapon unusable. For CQB, which is where bullpups have a tremendous advantage, a mushy heavy trigger probably isn't as big a deal as it would be for a precision rifle. And that's the other thing...... people are shooting out to 900-1000 yards with .308 caliber weapons with 24" barrels and less. Back not long ago, a longer barrel was considered a must have.....for instance, my Remington 700 has a 26" barrel. But 24" is more than enough tube to get enough powder burn to throw a heavy match bullet 1000 yards. So I question the need for a 32" heavy barrel, which would take away the advantages of a bullpup without adding any advantage that I'm aware of. In fact, the 32" barreled version weighs 11.3 lbs without an optic, according to Kel-Tec.

[drjoker]

Ah, I understand now. Thanks. I didn't notice that before, but now I do. Gunlbast.com's review had qualified praise for the RFB's trigger, " The Kel-Tec RFB has absolutely the best trigger pull that I have ever felt on a bullpup rifle."

Now, I understand why I've always had to slowly squeeze the trigger on an AR-15 when shooting longer distances at smaller targets while I can quickly pull the trigger on my bolt action rifle. I could outshoot any novice with an AR-15 with my bolt action rifle. The trick is not using your trigger finger to fire. You work the bolt with your thumb and trigger finger while pulling the trigger with your middle finger so you don't have to reposition the trigger finger after cycling the bolt. Your middle finger is already in the correct place after cycling the bolt.

Or why I strangely enjoy shooting my el cheapo $100 Heritage single action revolver more than my expensive Glock. I've never shot a 1911 before. Maybe I'll enjoy that more than shooting a Glock, too? I've just never seriously considered buying a 1911 because of the cost. A reliable 1911 costs twice as much as a Glock. Also, it carries half the ammo capacity. It never made any sense to me to pay twice as much for something that held half as much bullets.

What is "bullpup trigger"? I've actually never shot a bullpup rifle before.

Because bullpups as a breed put the trigger well forward of the action, there tends to be a lot of slop and lack of precision in the connection from the trigger shoe to the sear/hammer. That translates as a spongy or mushy, not very precise trigger. Add to that the fact that a lot of bullpups have trigger weights in the 6-8 lb range, and it's just not nearly as good a trigger as even the "OEM" AR trigger. WRT the RFB specifically, I have seen mixed reviews. GunBlast for instance said it was the best bullpup trigger they had fired to date......but that is relative. But other reviewers have called it spongy and heavy. So, maybe it's good.......for a bullpup.....but that's still not as good as a stock AR trigger. And stock AR triggers aren't that good compared to say, a bolt rifle or a good over and under shotgun. They're just not as bad as some other modern sporting rifles. Fortunately, it is pretty easy to tune a stock AR trigger to make it into something pretty decent, and $225 or so will get you a nice drop in Timney or Geissele trigger to replace it.

It's not to say that "bullpup trigger" makes the weapon unusable. For CQB, which is where bullpups have a tremendous advantage, a mushy heavy trigger probably isn't as big a deal as it would be for a precision rifle. And that's the other thing...... people are shooting out to 900-1000 yards with .308 caliber weapons with 24" barrels and less. Back not long ago, a longer barrel was considered a must have.....for instance, my Remington 700 has a 26" barrel. But 24" is more than enough tube to get enough powder burn to throw a heavy match bullet 1000 yards. So I question the need for a 32" heavy barrel, which would take away the advantages of a bullpup without adding any advantage that I'm aware of. In fact, the 32" barreled version weighs 11.3 lbs without an optic, according to Kel-Tec.

[The Annoyed Man]

Ah, I understand now. Thanks. I didn't notice that before, but now I do. Gunlbast.com's review had qualified praise for the RFB's trigger, " The Kel-Tec RFB has absolutely the best trigger pull that I have ever felt on a bullpup rifle."

Now, I understand why I've always had to slowly squeeze the trigger on an AR-15 when shooting longer distances at smaller targets while I can quickly pull the trigger on my bolt action rifle. I could outshoot any novice with an AR-15 with my bolt action rifle. The trick is not using your trigger finger to fire. You work the bolt with your thumb and trigger finger while pulling the trigger with your middle finger so you don't have to reposition the trigger finger after cycling the bolt. Your middle finger is already in the correct place after cycling the bolt.

Or why I strangely enjoy shooting my el cheapo $100 Heritage single action revolver more than my expensive Glock. I've never shot a 1911 before. Maybe I'll enjoy that more than shooting a Glock, too? I've just never seriously considered buying a 1911 because of the cost. A reliable 1911 costs twice as much as a Glock. Also, it carries half the ammo capacity. It never made any sense to me to pay twice as much for something that held half as much bullets.

What is "bullpup trigger"? I've actually never shot a bullpup rifle before.

Because bullpups as a breed put the trigger well forward of the action, there tends to be a lot of slop and lack of precision in the connection from the trigger shoe to the sear/hammer. That translates as a spongy or mushy, not very precise trigger. Add to that the fact that a lot of bullpups have trigger weights in the 6-8 lb range, and it's just not nearly as good a trigger as even the "OEM" AR trigger. WRT the RFB specifically, I have seen mixed reviews. GunBlast for instance said it was the best bullpup trigger they had fired to date......but that is relative. But other reviewers have called it spongy and heavy. So, maybe it's good.......for a bullpup.....but that's still not as good as a stock AR trigger. And stock AR triggers aren't that good compared to say, a bolt rifle or a good over and under shotgun. They're just not as bad as some other modern sporting rifles. Fortunately, it is pretty easy to tune a stock AR trigger to make it into something pretty decent, and $225 or so will get you a nice drop in Timney or Geissele trigger to replace it.

It's not to say that "bullpup trigger" makes the weapon unusable. For CQB, which is where bullpups have a tremendous advantage, a mushy heavy trigger probably isn't as big a deal as it would be for a precision rifle. And that's the other thing...... people are shooting out to 900-1000 yards with .308 caliber weapons with 24" barrels and less. Back not long ago, a longer barrel was considered a must have.....for instance, my Remington 700 has a 26" barrel. But 24" is more than enough tube to get enough powder burn to throw a heavy match bullet 1000 yards. So I question the need for a 32" heavy barrel, which would take away the advantages of a bullpup without adding any advantage that I'm aware of. In fact, the 32" barreled version weighs 11.3 lbs without an optic, according to Kel-Tec.

Follow up.....

I just got my June issue of Gun-Tests magazine, and one of their articles revisits their test RFB, and gives it a "D" grade: http://www.gun-tests.com/gunreport_detail/9802.html (you have to be a subscriber to see the whole thing.)

Our first time around with this rifle was abject failure — so many malfunctions that we sent it back for warranty work. The second time was better, but we still had beaucoup malfunctions.

{——SNIP——}

We started out with Winchester 7.62x51 NATO rounds and sighted in the rifle, finding that it jammed about every third round, although all of these were cleared by ejecting the magazine and cycling the action a few times. These malfunctions were not consistent — we had failures to eject, failures to load, and failures to fire, though most involved a round either falling out of the magazine well or a casing sliding down the front ejection chute.

{——SNIP——}

The major, fun-stopping failure we had was when a casing was pushed forward before it got to the ejection chute and jammed on the frame and edge of the chute. This jammed the action to the point that it wouldn’t cycle to clear the round, and we had to almost completely disassemble the rifle to be able to pry out the casing. After 30 minutes of frustration, a Leatherman tool, and some serious effort, we finally had the round cleared.

Then when we tried to reassemble the rifle, we noticed that the left wall of the chute had been bent to 90 degrees and prevented the spring from passing by. After more work to bend this back into place, we finally got the rifle reassembled so we could take a few more pictures. To recap, at this point of the test the RFB had produced multiple failures to fire, load, and eject, and one malfunction was so bad that it seized the action to the point of needing a full disassembly to clear. So we shipped it back to Kel-Tec for warranty work.

There is a lot more detail in the article, including pictures of a spent case with the rim shaved off, jammed cases and cartridges, bent noses on live rounds, and a look at the ejection channel which had been severely bent by a jammed case.

drjoker, like you, when this rifle first came out, I thought it was pretty cool. But over time and hearing vague rumors, I thought that maybe it wasn't as well built as I had hoped. This article convinced me that I'd never waste the money on one. I am a left-handed shooter, and so the forward ejection of spent brass seemed like a good thing in a bullpup for me. But I don't need one that bad if this is the best Kel-Tec can do. About the only thing that it had going for it was reasonable 2MOA accuracy. But I sure as heck wouldn't trust my life to this rifle.

[Bang4Buck]

I wound up building a 308 AR. For the money, I think I did pretty damn good compared to anything comparable that you can buy off the shelf:

http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php ... highlight=" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Skip to post 77 if you want to see the final build parts list.

[Dave2]

What is "bullpup trigger"? I've actually never shot a bullpup rifle before.

A bullpup puts the chamber back in the stock, just about where your cheek rests. The firing mechanism, of necessity, has to be behind the chamber. This means it requires a long rod, or some other mechanism, to reach back from the trigger's new location (forward of the chamber) to the firing mechanism. This introduces additional friction and flexing between the two.

As a result, bullpups are notorious for having "mushy" triggers with an unpredictable break point, thus the nickname "bullpup trigger".

Why not put a 2nd sear up front with the trigger, and let that activate the "long rod"?

(Although I suppose you're not the one to ask, unless you work for Keltec.)

ETA: I voted LR308, because it seems the least proprietary, and you can buy/build them in a wider range of prices/accuracies/features. I think. I'm not an expert.

[LSUTiger]

Daniel Defense 7.62 Sneak Peek
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2S5bP5Ctdo" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm glad I wasn't ready to buy anything yet, this might be the ticket!

[Bang4Buck]

Daniel Defense 7.62 Sneak Peek
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2S5bP5Ctdo" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm glad I wasn't ready to buy anything yet, this might be the ticket!

no doubt it will be a fine rifle. I'm betting it is around 3k.

Very happy with my build for around 2k. It is a tank. My 2 cents is the AR 308 market is so small right now that you can build as good or better for much less money than buying an LMT, Larue, or KAC. The budget way to go is just buy the S&W or maybe the Armalite.

Almost forgot to mention the new Aero Precision 308 looks pretty good:

http://aeroprecisionusa.com/complete-ri ... s-308.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;