Battle Rifle Review

Randy Harris at Taipan Magazine (formerly Warrior Talk News) discusses the primary battle rifles. By "battle rifle," the author means rifles in .30 caliber or larger such as the .30-06, 7.62 NATO, and 7.62x54R. The four the author compares are the M-14 (and the M1A civilian counterpart), the FAL, L1A1 (the British version of the FAL), and the G-3 (and the PTR91 civilian version).

After discussing a bit of the history of each firearm, Harris gets into some of the issues for the prepper.

So what is available today and why would you want one? 

We will start with the “why”. Simply put 7.62x51 (or .308Win) makes concealment out of things that .223 and 7.62x39 still thinks are cover. The battle rifle is simply built to shoot through things. A friend asked me what the underlying logic was for a civilian owning an iron sighted .30 caliber battle rifle. My immediate answer? Vehicles. In a Hurricane Katrina or other natural disaster situation or civil unrest where looters (or worse) might try to enter a neighborhood and bust through a neighbor hood roadblock, a 7.62x51 rifle can disable a car a lot faster and while expending far less rounds than any .223 or 5.56x45. Also when out in the great outdoors if you take a rifle with you a .308 can simply do more (engage at longer distance and shoot through things better than .223 or 7.62x39. While I’m not saying you should sell all your ARs or AKs and roll with just battle rifles, I am saying a battle rifle is never a bad thing to have on hand in case of civil unrest or natural (or man made) disaster.

The author has a few complaints about the rifles, which I won't repeat here; suffice it to say, though, that he does not think highly of the M14 and civilian variants based on its design features (including the wood stock), and that it is not very reliable when run dry (you need to keep the gun greased). The FAL and L1A1 seems acceptable to the author, except for its reputation for being a little finicky with ammo (I would also note that the Israelis had problems with its reliability in desert conditions). He likes the G3/PTR91 the best (although, I would note that his employer sells them, so there may be some bias). One concern he mentions is that models available for civilian sale are all clones in some way--they all had to be modified to some extent or another to allow sales in the U.S.--and that the mil-spec parts for these rifles have largely dried up. Part of the reason that he favors the PTR91 is because PTR had imported manufacturing equipment from HK, so their rifles are the closest to mil-spec as you can get. Harris was also conscious of magazine prices for the various rifles, with magazines for the M14 at about $50, the FAL at $20, and the HK for $7 (although, I think you can still find deals where you can pick them up for a few dollars each).

Although I have shot the M1 Garand and the Mini-14, I don't have any experience with the M-14/M1A myself. I agree that the design is old. I know that the Garand needs to be greased. On the other hand, the Mini 14 is the probably the most reliable rifle I've ever shot, and doesn't require any special lubrication. Maybe Ruger improved the design--I don't know. Harris doesn't like the safety on the trigger guard. I actually think it is a great location for the safety because it is truly ambidextrous and doesn't require you to break your hold or grip (such as lifting your thumb) to operate the safety. Plus, as soon as you try to put your finger in the trigger, you know the safety is on. The location would be a downside for a select fire weapon, but for a semi-auto, it is superior. The downside to the design is that it is not amenable to adding optics, and the bolt is completely exposed to the elements.

The FAL easily has one of the best triggers of any combat/self-defense rifle I've shot, and is very accurate. The cocking handle is on the left, and easily reached. Ergonomically, it is also a very good design. There is a reason is was so widely adopted. As I mentioned above, the Israelis had problems with the rifles in the sand and dust of the Sinai and Golan heights. Otherwise, it seems to have been reliable enough for anywhere it served.

I've also shot the PTR91 and CETME, and find the design to be ergonomically acceptable. When correctly put together, the rifle is extremely reliable, but I have heard of some manufacturing issues with some of the U.S. made clones at different times. It seems to work fine in the desert environments (and was widely adopted throughout the Middle-East), but I've heard that the roller-block system doesn't like the high humidity of jungles and so on. So, about the opposite of the FAL in that regard. I think its sights are the worst of the lot, but since you probably would be putting some sort of optical sight, that probably is not as important as it would have been. As noted above, one of the primary advantages is that magazines are easily found, and cheap.