I think we ought to narrow the scope of the word modern, in this discussion, to encompass only the 21st century.

The weapon add-ons that are largely responsible for driving the discussion did not proliferate with gusto until the GWOT and the sunset of AWB.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:

quote:

Originally posted by 357fuzz:
Get a Norwegian or Swedish version of the HK G3. I think it is a pretty good modern version of a 7.62 battle rifle.

Modern





Norway and Sweden adopted the G3 in the 1960s, and in both countries the G3 was replaced decades ago, except for occasional stopgap DMR use (like the US did with the M14 for a time) or for third-line home guard stockpiles.

How about I revise and say a version w/ some “more contemporary accessories “.

Ok. So are we talking Plain Jane rifles or rifles w/ a ton of stuff on them? M16/AR15 vs. a 7.62mm semi/auto rifle. If you are talking a rifle w/ multiple additions to it then the AR. If just grabbing a rifle w/ nothing on it but sights a G3/HK91.

I grew up shooting an actual HK91, not one of the myriad clones. I was glad to finally be rid of it. There’s a cult following for that gun that frankly, I don’t think it deserves. The M14 I replaced it with, I was also happy to be rid of.

I know, heresy. That said, if I have anything to say about it, I’ll never be without a Garand again.

I think one should choose the best for their particular AO.

Urban/suburban area where engagement distances are
less than 100 meters is where a 5.56 carbine will be more than adequate.

Living out in a rural area where the nearest house is hundreds of yards away? Get a 7.62 rifle.

At the end of the day, though, it's not the arrow, it's the Indian...

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:

quote:

quote:

I have always liked the old school slim light guns without all the junk hanging off them that is common these days.

I call them man Barbies®.

You get none of the advantages of an M14, but with all the weight.

I don't have a bone to pick with any one member. I am using this quote from Mars Attacks' recent SP1 thread as the latest example of a recurring comment on this forum. It's no doubt seen on every firearm forum online.

It's a discussion we've had before, and it's one that, I believe, is largely influenced by subjective preferential differences due to inevitable generational differences across the firearms "community".

I think when people talk about the M14 like that, they are disparaging it, and the AR. The M14 is actually a great DMR, while a poor general infantry rifle. The history of its development is really something of the failings of government. Not the rifle itself.

The AR is so flexible in caliber and configuration today, that it really can be anything. I think all people mean to say, is that the distilled purpose of the AR, is a near 5lb rifle. I agree with that, I have a thread about how to get to a lightweight AR without going to extremes.



If I were allowed suppressors here in MA, it would be wonderful.

Here is my take on a modern, basic M14:



Now, you deck the AR and the M14 out with suppressors and geegaws, I'll take the M14, or the Mark 11 Mod 0, or oh so many options. If I'm carrying a heavy rifle, I'd like it to hit heavy.

How bout this:



This?



It's all a bunch of hot air, the right rifle, is the right rifle for your purpose, whatever that is. There is no "do all," and really no best. Someone will make a choice for their purpose, and actually using it will expose the truth.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
Further muddying the waters of that argument is that there are now sub-6 pound .308 ARs available... So you don't even have to compromise in caliber.

But you'll pay tribute at the altar of Recoil..

quote:

Urban/suburban area where engagement distances are
less than 100 meters is where a 5.56 carbine will be more than adequate.

Living out in a rural area where the nearest house is hundreds of yards away? Get a 7.62 rifle.

The conversation, I think, is more about power than range. Power against armor and barriers.

Having dealt with UGI M14s in the DMR role in the Army both in garrison and Iraq, I would say the M14 is not a good DMR. Magazine availability issues in the Army system, issues with the piston and M118LR (Not the rifles fault, It was designed well before M118LR was a dream), poorly trained Armorers, parts availability, visual signature, plus the standard M14's accuracy was at best on par with the AR-10/SR-15s, plus rifle weight, etc. The M14 was a decent stop-gap or interim DMR until we could standardize and work the bugs out of the M110 and it definitely filled the requirement we asked it to. For the record, I was dealing with M14s pulled from stockpiles and fitted with SAGE stocks and commercial optics, not M-25s or National Match M14s.

A Benny6 M14 on the other hand is a superb rifle that I wouldn't mind owning. He has done things with M14 pattern rifle that impresses me.

In a state like NY where you can't buy a full feature Ar-10, FAL, ETC. The m14/M1A is a good choice.

I'd also point to Ash Hess's recent article on DMRs and the requirements for and training of them. IF, (BIG IF) the XM-7 does what's claimed it will also impact DMR. I can't speak for the other branches.

quote:

Originally posted by fritz:
The M14 is long in the tooth when compared to the AR10.

This about sums it up.

If this is what an M14 user thinks when they pick up a contemporary equipped AR15:

quote:

You get none of the advantages of an M14, but with all the weight.

I found it interesting to reverse the scenario...

If someone who's used to the weight/bulk and performance of an equipped 5.56 AR15 picked up a naked M14, or even an AR10, they'd almost certainly think something like:

"this thing weighs as much, and is as big as my AR15, but has none of the enhanced performance granted by my AR's add-ons, it holds less ammo on board, and I can carry less ammo in my equipment. This seems like a huge sacrifice."

This message has been edited. Last edited by: KSGM,

quote:

Originally posted by copaup:
I don't see a use case in my area where I'll need to reach out to 600 yards or shoot through heavy cover. 5.56 meets all my needs.

If I was out west in wild open spaces or my concern changes from criminals to armored Russian paratroopers (WOLVERINES!!!) then my needs would change. Fortunately I have a couple .308s in the safe as well. Just in case.

It's an AR that I'd grab first to check things that go bump in the night around here though.

I’d make the exact same argument for (me) using an AK, which is my go to. You get the thirty caliber out of it and I much prefer piston over direct impingement. They are so simple to run, clean, and you can run them dirty. It’s plenty accurate for a few hundred yards. After that I want a bolt anyway. It’ll hunt deer, pigs, it’s not for everyone but like you said, it meets all my needs honestly. The world over it’s the most popular rifle. I’ve got RPK, AKM, pistol and shotgun versions. I could honestly sell my 556 rifles but I keep a pair just in case for ammo shortages, or whatever. Oh and the Wolverines, IIRC, were using stolen AK’s

Interesting……

https://youtu.be/mjtwkFME2dk?si=eeQ8NUNHcEYsysi7

quote:

I’d make the exact same argument for (me) using an AK, which is my go to.

Remember, the discussion is largely about add-ons in the context of a contemporary battlefield. Would you prefer the AK over the AR, when both were equally equipped with optic, laser, light, silencer, etc?

Another factor with the AK is ammo. Where I live, it's much more likely that you'd be able to "battlefield pick-up" more 5.56, than 7.62x39. x39 is not as common or affordable as it once was; nor is it as common among our potential enemies. I have a x39 rifle, and I am glad I do, but it's not a rifle I think is going to make the difference for me.

I'm late to the party and I skimmed through the responses as best as I could. I will say that the M14's disadvantages that make it capable of ho-hum accuracy are a lack of skilled builders, lack of marksmanship training and the high cost of a vintage design and requirements for manufacturing.

I see the M14 as the 1911 of the rifle world. It's been around for a long time, modern designs have made it impractical, but it's got soul and is still alive.

The private sector has made some great advancements with modularity in recent years with the release of upgraded receivers with integrated scope rails, chassis systems like the JAE and the Blackfeather as well as the SAGE. I know the SAGE has a bad reputation, but I think it was due to the scope mounting solutions that were available at the time. The Blackfeather chassis has done wonders for modularity as well. There are other alternatives to a bedded stock these days.

The biggest disadvantage the M14 has is the cost. One of my builds without a scope and with premium hammer forged components will start at $3,500 and go up from there. One of my builds tops out at $7,000 with the chassis, scope, bipod and match grade upgrades. And that's only the cost of the parts. That's not including the builder fee. It also tips the scales at 17 pounds. To it's credit, I did get invited to a long range shoot that stopped at 900 yards and after getting a 600 yard zero, I never missed the steel, all the way out to 900 yards.

The crew that invited me had never seen a M14 shoot that good. EVER! One of the guys was a writer for "The Truth About Guns" (his alias is Joe Grine). He eventually bought a Fulton rifle and had me rebarrel it with a heavy Kreiger and bed it. It ended up being a 0.8 MOA gun. He told me I changed his opinions on the M14 platform.

A properly built M14 in the right hands is extremely difficult to beat! Most of the competent rifle builders are retired or dead, as are the old master high power shooters of the 80's and 90's. The number of gunsmiths that will work on M14's or M1 Garands shrinks every year. I feel like it's me and a couple of guys left and that's it.

The realization hit me hard when a couple of my recent customers contacted me for bedding jobs. I asked how they heard of me, or who referred me and they said McMillan (the stock makers) were telling them to have me bed their rifles. I was kind of blown away by that.

I will say that most M14's and M1A's are capable of better accuracy but they lack the right shooter. Since it's been my primary rifle that I shoot at the range, I just have developed the right techniques required to shoot the M14 and the Garand. There's something different about them and they require your position to be spot on in order to hit the bullseye. The rifle will beat you out of position if it's not right.

That's one of the reasons I always send test targets with my builds. That's the accuracy baseline that I establish before it leaves my shop.

I tell people that the AR-15 will make you shoot better, but it won't make you a better shooter. The design is forgiving if you have flaws in your shooting form. If you can shoot a M14 or a M1 Garand well, you'll shoot very well when transitioning to the AR platform.

I'm currently building a practical DMR that will consist of a LRB M25 receiver, a composite M14 stock, bedded with a match grade gas system and a medium weight Kreiger 18.5" barrel. I'm just waiting on my receiver to finish the build. It should be a solid 1 MOA shooter and weigh about 11 to 12 pounds with the scope. The 18" barrel should easily get me to 800 yards, especially with the modern bullets available these days.

It will look similar to this...


That's a SOCOM barrel, but this is the closes representation of the rifle I'll be building.

Tony.

I had a Socom-16, now gone. I have a Greek made Springfield Sar-8, which is probably the most “G3” clone out there that doesn’t get shot much. In a realistic confrontation that doesn’t give me a long field of fire from strong cover, an AR platform is superior enough for a lot of obvious reasons over a similarly weighted, naked 7.62 battle rifle. I’d be perfectly content with the AR.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
Interesting……
https://youtu.be/mjtwkFME2dk?si=eeQ8NUNHcEYsysi7

I've only watched a few T.rex Arms videos before. They know how to shoot quickly at short distances, for sure. It's impressive. They are well beyond my skill levels for less than 50 yards, but I don't regularly train for that. I also don't have nice flat, prepared ground to move around on while running. Doing so in my training pastures isn't prudent. The ground generally isn't much better on the matches that I've attended, as they tend to be on terrain that's even less suitable for running.

T.rex's comparison of carbines & precision ARs is similar what I've experienced for a number of years now in the 2-rifle matches held at NRA Whittington Center in Raton, New Mexico. The 2-rifle matches require carrying & using both a precision bolt action and a carbine for each stage, often engaging targets while wearing a pack and one of the weapons slung. Thus, our moving speeds between shooting positions is a little slower -- from walking to a mid-paced jog. There are 10 carbine targets per stage, with distances as close as 5 yards, and generally no more than 400 yards. I've shot one stage with a 12" plate at 440 yards, and one stage with a full-sized IPSC at 500 yards -- but these are the long-distance exceptions. Most of the steel targets are from 80-300 yards. Carbine shooting positions include standing off-hand (often with slung bolt action rifle), kneeling, occasionally prone, leaning against trees, sometimes from a tripod, and from all types of funky barriers.

The Raton match has shooters from both the precision and 3-gun disciplines. In its initial years, the 3-gun guys were often winning or near the top at the end of the weekend. As the precision bolt action guys better learned how to play the carbine-target game, the precision shooters rose to the top. The carbines generally can be divided into two basic configurations. (1) A 14-16" AR15 with ACOG or LPVO, often an offset red dot, sometimes a light duty bipod, often 55-62 grain FMJ ammo, 30-round mags. (2) A 16-18" AR15 with a quality stainless barrel, mid-power glass (from 2-10x to 4-16x), sometimes an offset red dot, quality bipod, 69-77 grain match ammo, 20-round mags.

To be competitive in the match, all 10 carbine target points per stage must be attained. If you dropped points, your chances of being high on the leader board were nil. The match was really decided by how many of the 10 possible precision rifle points per stage were attained. Five minutes max per stage, and the better shooters generally reserved 3 minutes for the carbine targets and 2 minutes for the bolt action targets.

I've generally used an 18" AR with a 3.5-15x scope. I was slow-ish on the close targets, but kicked ass at 100+ yards. The best shooter in the region used an 11" barrel AR with a 2-10x scope, and he won the match more than anyone else. I've placed 2nd and 3rd to him. We generally completed the carbine portions of stages with one 20-round mag -- precision fire, at a measured pace. There were always a number of shooters with 3-gun backgrounds who used two 30-round mags to get through the carbine portions -- lots of wasted ammo, lots of time consumed.

I've seen a few AR10 rifles in this match. Some shooters did OK, others not so much.
I've seen a couple of M14 rifles in this match. The shooters didn't score well with them.
I've seen a couple of AK47 rifles in this match. The shooters scored quite poorly with them.

This type of shooting more closely mimics real field conditions.
This is definitely not high-contrast paper targets at 50 or 100 yards, from a bench rest, using heavy bags or lead sleds, no time pressure, at a range with barriers which minimize wind effects.

****
Back to the T.Rex Arms video.
Transitions between targets were faster with the lighter carbines -- absolutely.
Longer guns are more stable -- absolutely.

Concentrate on the basics and fundaments. Then, when you have these done, consider longer range shooting. Possible the best statements in the entire video.

Sorry, but I have to chuckle at their "wind" discussions. They shot in a relatively narrow, tall tree-lined corridor. They talked of wind drifts of .3 to .5 mils -- meaning 1 to 1-3/4 MOA. Coming from the open prairie, desert lands, and mountain foothills.... only 1-2 MOA of wind drift would be just frickin' AWESOME. Cheese and rice, just try shooting in my common conditions of 4-6 MOA wind drift at these distances. And even greater wind holds at longer distances.

Fitz, If you like that style, try Ash Hess's Quantified Performacne Matches. I shot one at the Saw Mill in GA. Alot of similar stages, but you only get to use one rifle. The closest shooting was 100 yard transitions, the longest was multiple engagements at around 600-800 yards. Interestingly enough, the rifles I saw where among similar lines with similar results. The one exception was the AR-10 shooter in our squad did very well, but he put in a lot of practice and also shot long range precision rifle.

quote:

Originally posted by fritz:
Excellent post

One of my coworkers commented today that I am a “metrics guy”. Meaning that I am pretty data driven on doctrine decision making. And with that we have the luxury of flushing a lot of stuff out. If XYZ is supposed to make you faster, why aren’t you faster?

This video really makes me wonder if for shorter range set ups (think suppressed 11.5s) if a quality 1x6 with a RDS back up might not be the ticket. 1x10s are generally heavier, bigger and a little unbalanced. Don’t get me wrong, I like the Razor 1x10, but they have their pros and cons. A gun with an EoTech or Aimpoint will always be faster on close up targets. (As a general rule). A good friend is loaning a SIG Tango 6T and I think I’m going to play with it in and out of the ahoothouse.

I skipped through that video. I got the impression that their SPR performance would have been better had they been more practiced in that particular discipline. Like fritz said, they are likely sharper on the close/mid range stuff with the smaller guns.

I do just as much shooting in the more "dynamic" setting of a wooded property as I do on a flat range. I understand the value of magnification, and have commented on it before. Target detection/identification can require more magnification than you might think, at shorter ranges than you might think, when you introduce environmental factors of terrain and vegetation. Not to mention target contrast (or a lack thereof). I reckon there's a reason most deer hunters default to a 3-9x40 (where I live anyway), even when the majority of engagements are under 100y.

They opened the woods back up and I was able to get out to the new range that's been finished for almost 4 years.

I brought a few AR's to air out with a 16" .308 being one.
Not something I would want to run around with even with just a Romeo 5 on it.
Definitely not something I would use hunting if given the choice.

Being overcast with fog rolling through I was quickly reminded that the Primary Arms 1-8 I have is a fair weather scope at best. Pretty much useless after 50 yards in those conditions, had to really hunt for a 10" Cat yellow plate at 100 yards.
My 18" with a NF 2.5-10x42 picked it up much better.