Since I am weak, I will probably end up not keeping my 2017 resolution to bring home no new guns.  So much the better, as far as I am concerned. 

I have been batting the idea around, and I do feel that I should have an MBR in my arsenal.  Of the above six options, which 18" 7.62 battle rifle would you choose? 

Of the five listed, I am open to any except the PTR.  I am not interested in those, but I left the option up for the sake of completeness.  If that is your preference, say so anyway.  I am not the only one who will reference this thread in the time to come.

Thanks!

I've got all of them with the exception of the Keltec.  Well and the PTR, but I think a CETME is close enough.    I'd avoid the Keltec strictly due to the rarity.  You can't even find the things, and good luck finding replacement parts if it breaks 10 years from now.

AR-10 probably has the widest variety of available accessories.   Used to be that they were rare,  but now AR's are all over the place.  You can really customize it up however you want.  Optics mounting is the easiest of the three if you get a flat top. 

If you had asked this question 10-15 years ago, the FAL would have won hands down due to magazine and parts availability.  That's not the case anymore.  They are still around, but there aren't piles of surplus parts all over the place, and DSA is the only major manufacturer of new ones.    That being said, DSA makes very nice rifle and they offer all sorts of accessories and customization options.  Plus, I think they look the coolest out of the three.   Optics mounting is easy, but you will need to buy a railed dust cover.

M1A's are good if you shoot better with a more traditional stock.   The downside is that they are a little more expensive,  and optics mounting is probably the hardest of the three.   

You can find magazines for any of them for less than $20 if you hunt around.    This is one area that the PTR (or CETME) really has an advantage in since G3 magazines are still super cheap.   

You are going to spend about the same amount of money for the basic rifle on all three of them,  it's the accessories that are going to determine price difference.   

I chose the AR 10.  Mostly because the platform is pretty adaptable, parts are fairly plentiful and a caliber swap is considerably easier on them than most anything else.  And, I can get Gundoc to build one for me.   

.308 AR.
Ergonomics, weight, and accuracy.
I've also built and worked on hundreds of ARs so familiarity with maintenance and repair on this system is another factor.

I see someone voted 'Something Else' in the poll...  Which is fine...  But I would really like to know what they had in mind.  What other options would you consider?

I see someone voted 'Something Else' in the poll...  Which is fine...  But I would really like to know what they had in mind.  What other options would you consider?

I voted 'Something Else' because the M1A is not your only option when it comes to M14 clones.

sarge712's Scout has an 18" barrel, and it's been my experience that the 18" Bush/Scout/MK14 length barrels are the best non-standard length barrels. They are available in standard & medium heavy weight profiles, I'm sure there is a heavy 18" out there - but why?

AR-10.



Tinker toy of rifles.  And prices on these have really dropped, especially if you build.  Easily re-chambered if desired.  And if you are willing to spend M1A money on your build you can make scout rifle weight.



This one is in 358 Win with a 16" barrel.  But an 18" barrel with a pencil profile would probably weigh a big less.

Pretty, and I agree about M14s that look like Aliens props, but I would want a synthetic stock for stability.  OD Green, if a Springfield.

Wood stocks feel great and they can be pretty, but they are also highly susceptible to changes in the weather. Your accuracy changes as the wood expands and contracts. GI synthetic stocks resist changes in the weather, but they are also pretty heavy. With the exception of the E2, neither of the vintage / retro wood & synthetic stocks are easily scoped. Modern Aluminum chassis stocks can be lighter than wood & synthetic, they are impervious to changing weather conditions, and they can make adding optics as easy as with an AR10.

 

I voted other.  If I were going to get one, I'd go with a FN SCAR.  Of the ones listed that I've actually shot, that was the easiest to shoot, lightest, lowest felt recoil.  Also most expensive.


If price were a concern, I'd get a bolt action and practice getting shots off quickly.

I voted AR-10.  That is because I already have a hi-cap .308, well kinda, in the form of my Savage 99.  9+1 is sorta hi-cap. 

I have a burning urge to play with some of the semi-auto platform large calibers specifically in .458 and .338 calibers. 

If I was serious about it I need to sell a couple of the poodle shooters to fund the lower build.  I don't see any need for a larger cost toy rifle, unless I can hunt with it.  165gr .30 just don't do it around here unless it is really moving.  I do have a fondness for large bullets poking along.

Back to the OP, why do you want one?  If it is for .30 cal fun, why not go AK?  Or https://www.hmgunworks.com/product/hmg-sturmgewehr-standard-length-223/ in 7.62X39.  I am strongly considering going with that caliber in one for me.

The SOCOM length M14 does look good in wood.




With the lone exception of the Springfield M1903, the M14 rifle
is the longest serving rifle used by units of U.S. Armed forces.

America's last MBR is the M14.

The only other options I can think of are somewhat exotic.   You can get .308 VEPR's pretty easily, but magazine availability is a problem.  You need to either get it converted to take something more common,  or deal with high-priced VEPR magazines.

You can find BM-59s,  but those are essentially just a more expensive M1A.   

Then you get into the really crazy collectible stuff like a Sig AMT,  .308 Valmet or Galil, etc.