Best 7.62mm battle rifle

[OxPecker 0]

OK, a poll for you military types (and other gun experts).

Which full powered (7.62x51mm) battle rifle is the best, in terms of accuracy and reliability.

The new trend for most armies is towards less powerful rifles (5.56mm etc.) where soldiers can carry more ammo.

Also, which armies/militaries still use full-powered rifles?

[110 0]

Its really hard to say. The accuracy between all of the above will vary depending on brand of manufacture/model etc.

M14-Very reliable. Excellent Iron sights. Not good for scope mountin IMHO. There is a pistol grip stock out there for more ergonomic handling as well as light weight polymer stocks. Not a good platform for selective fire. During Vietnam FA converted M14's suffered cracked recievers.

G3 (HK)-Good sights, but i like the M14's better. Can more comfortably be fitted with a scope. Does not have a bolt-hold open on last shot like the FN FAL (L1a1). Also the mag release button is too far forward. Is known to have more recoil then M14 and FAL. Stock is uncomfortable.

FN FAL (L1a1)-Better ergonomics then the other two IMHO. Gas regulation setting make adopting the rifle to certain loads easier. Scope mounting works great. Good irons, but not as good as M14. Bolt hold open on last shot.-some models do not, but can easily be modded for this feature. Can handle FA fireing and the "sand groove" cuts on the bolt help make this on of the most reliable Battle Rifles.

AR10 (SR25)-beefed up M16 in 7.62x51mm. Light weight. Excellent accuracy, but propably not as reliable as others above though. The SR25 and AR10(T) are more cost effective then the HK PSG-1 IMHO. (The SR25 costs about $3,000+ vs $10,000 for the PSG-1) AR10(T) and the SR25 are both capable of SUB MOA accuracy.

[OxPecker 0]

Thanks for the info 110.

Anyone else used any of these rifles?

[shadow 6]

First of all I must say I'm no expert at this.

I've only used the G3A3 (Norwegian Air Force) and if I got to choose my rifle before going into a war I'd choose the good old grandpa

[Guest]

AK-47 no doubt

The G3 is a good rifle - reliable and accurate. It's however also too heavy and difficult to clean.

[WhoCares 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 07 2003,11:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">AK-47 no doubt <span id='postcolor'>

Yepp, that's why I voted others a few hours back. But then I noticed his post about 7.62x51 and the AK is slightly different, 7.62x39 or something... But then, I think I heard somewhere that it is also capable to use NATO rounds...

[Major Fubar 0]

Good question: is the 7.62 x 39 round considered a "full powered" round?

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The G3 is a good rifle - reliable and accurate. It's however also too heavy and difficult to clean.<span id='postcolor'>

If it is to heavy you are to weak

The G3 of course.

Although it has problems with sand and mud I prefer it to a weapon I never really got a friend of. The AK may be great, but I learned how to assemble and maintain a G3 and not the AK, so the choice is clear.

Dig, dig, dig...

Found a pic with me and the G3 in Africa.

[FallenPaladin 0]

I liked my G3, even after I had to clean it so often that it was almost looking totally chrome and shiny.

And I don`t took it for too heavy. If I had no entrenching tool for close combat I`d rather use a G3 as club than a G36!

[Maraudeur 0]

I vote for the G3, but this is biased, I am a complete HK nut.

BTW, AR10/SR25 are fine rifles and close second choice, but they are something like handmade rifles coumpared to G3s, so a G3 with little custom to reach same level of preparation beat them easely.

And if its 7.62, not 7.62x51 only, then AK107, or even old 47 is choice of mine also, depends of the warfare and where it takes place.

[-TU--33ker 0]

I voted G3. not because i'm german and not because i'm an expert.

because it has the most modification possibilities i think.

[shadow 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 07 2003,11:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's however also too heavy and difficult to clean.<span id='postcolor'>

Hehe I was expecting that answer from you

I recently saw a picture of your P99

hmmm maybe the G3 is'nt so difficult to clean after all eh

I choose the G3 out of the same reason Balschoiw said.

It's the only one I'm trained to use and most importantly; maintaine.

I believe the weight of the G3 is a plus. Can you imagine the recoil if it was even lighter ?

[Maraudeur 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Shadow @ April 07 2003,13:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 07 2003,11:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's however also too heavy and difficult to clean.<span id='postcolor'>

Hehe I was expecting that answer from you

I recently saw a picture of your P99

hmmm maybe the G3 is'nt so difficult to clean after all eh <span id='postcolor'>

Same here

[Longinius 1]

G3, out of personal preference. Trained on it, shot a lot with it, feel comfortable handle it. It didnt give me much problem in the Swedish forests, marshes and fields I carried it around in.

But like Denoir said, it is a bitch to clean. The weight however never really got to me, but if you more often then not find yourself in situations where every little bit of extra weight counts I can imagine opting for another weapon.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ April 07 2003,11:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The G3 is a good rifle - reliable and accurate. It's however also too heavy and difficult to clean.<span id='postcolor'>

If it is to heavy you are to weak  <span id='postcolor'>

Damn landlubbers all of you!

Try diving with the bastard and you'll see what I mean

Generally it's not practical where high mobility is required. Utterly useless for MOUT, even with the retractable stock.

Fortunately we never used the G3 (Ak4) extensivly but had the Ak5 (5.56x45) as our primary service rifle. Much lighter and entirely waterproof

[MrMilli 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Major Fubar @ April 07 2003,10:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Good question: is the 7.62 x 39 round considered a "full powered" round?<span id='postcolor'>

It is less powerful than 5.56, so no.

[OxPecker 0]

Looks like the G3 is the crowd favourite.

Funny, I expected more support for the M14.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ April 08 2003,02:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Looks like the G3 is the crowd favourite.

Funny, I expected more support for the M14.<span id='postcolor'>

Too heavy and too unwieldy in full auto to compare. Great rifle for marksmen who seek a compromise between accuracy and rate of fire though, imho. It would have been the ultimate WWII rifle, which is what it was essentially designed to be.

[Renagade 0]

I wonder how good it would be if u had a specially made ak type battle rifle that fired 7.62x51

Is there any pistol that fires the normal ak-47 bullets ?

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Renagade @ April 08 2003,02:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I wonder how good it would be if u had a specially made ak type battle rifle that fired 7.62x51<span id='postcolor'>

The Yugoslavian M77B1 fires the NATO 7.62 mm round

So does the Israeli Galil

And the Finnish Vamlet 78

All largely based on the basic AK.

incidentally, here's an article on some new Russian armour piercing ammo in a wide range of calibers including NATO 5.56x45 and 7.62x51 that is being field tested in Chechnya by Spetz Natz units

http://club.guns.ru/eng/barnaul.html

[madmedic 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WhoCares @ April 07 2003,11:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 07 2003,11:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">AK-47 no doubt <span id='postcolor'>

But then, I think I heard somewhere that it is also capable to use NATO rounds...<span id='postcolor'>

Nope...Allow me to illustrate (spelling?)

left to right: 5.56 NATO (with quarter), 5.56 NATO, 7.62x39, 7.62x51 (7.62 NATO)

[madmedic 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (MrMilli @ April 07 2003,18:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Major Fubar @ April 07 2003,10:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Good question: is the 7.62 x 39 round considered a "full powered" round?<span id='postcolor'>

It is less powerful than 5.56, so no.<span id='postcolor'>

5.56, and 7.62x39 are both intermediate rounds.

7.62x51 is a full powered round.

[madmedic 0]

As far as my vote on this issue...well, I love all quality firearms  

But for arguments sake...I have an FAL and a G3, and I have fired many M1As (semi auto version of M14), and one full auto M14.

All have their good points.

My FAL is much sweeter to shoot than my G3...but neither would be of much use in full auto without some serious trigger discipline.

Accuracy is comparable (although in most cases the G3 would likely have the edge in this aspect)

M14s are very accurate...but also large, and useless in full auto unless you are the Incredible Hulk.

All things considered...full auto fire (especially 7.62 Nato) is best left to the guy carrying the M240, M60, HK21...ect. ect.

All three of these rifles are great, and all have a rich history...The M14 is a little outdated for anything but special use (sniper, extreme environment, ect)

[110 0]

As far as accessories go the FN FAL has more that i have seen then the G3. Check DSA website for more details.

I like the Galil too, but the FAL is more user friendly. I would however pick the Galil over the Yugoslavian or other russian styled AK's simply because of the sights. Tangent sites are not as good as peep sights IMHO. Plus the Galil has a thumb operable safty.

Another .308 battle rifle (not assault rifle like AKM) that we forgot is the Sig 240.

I vote FAL (metric over inch pattern L1a1)

[Renagade 0]

what about the hk 51?? Is it just a cut down g3 or is its internals different ??