Recommendations for a Battle Rifle

Combloc · Jul 4, 2020

It's a 510. Nobody knows exactly how many were imported but it's probably a couple thousand at least. My understanding is that they never really imported them in batches but rather on a per order basis. SIG either didn't keep track or never released the information. They pop on GB from time to time and you may get lucky and run across one in a shop. Current value depending on condition is about 5-7K.

it was officially replaced by the 55x series (chambered in the 5.56 GP90 cartridge) in 1990. Here are a couple 551's:

Both are absolutely exemplary rifles and the finest/most refined I've ever shot in their respective calibers.

Slowhand · Jul 5, 2020

SCARCQB said:
The 20” DT mdrx.
In 308 or 6.5creed

Sexy beast! Caliber conversion kit is my next purchase. EuroOptic in PA has a MD Compliant 5.56 in stock now. https://www.eurooptic.com/desert-te...LWIzMDAtYjc4ZjAwYTE1ZTcy_MQ&o=0&p=1&i=48&d=48

PALYDIN11 · Jul 5, 2020

cb1980 said:
BDRx-10 F1 Firearms AR10

Impressive. That looks like a light rifle too.

oldman12 · Jul 5, 2020

vetogunban said:
I picked up the Springfield Saint Victor in .308 and from the little I shot it, definitely like it. Very soft shooting.

I was looking at those. Interested in updates.

cb1980 · Jul 5, 2020

PALYDIN11 said:
Impressive. That looks like a light rifle too.

I believe it was listed at 8.4 pounds with the 18" barrel

calicojack · Jul 6, 2020

Hey - Classic Firearms has some refurb M1903A3's for $1300 :rolleyes:

Silverlax · Jul 6, 2020

grimnar15 said:
Shuffs --- Mini G. (Garand base Rifle) 308, shortened and converted to hold 308 magazines...

What kind of accuracy are you seeing out of that? I have been thinking on one of those for a while.

Surt · Jul 6, 2020

PALYDIN11 said:
Impressive. That looks like a light rifle too.

Light, but at the expense of reliability. Look at all those cuts in the upper receiver to let dirt and grime in.

How much battle will this "battle rifle" see? If you want a race gun, then just get a 5.56 with all the practicality removed from it and be done with it, dispense with any pretenses of being a weapon for the engagement and killing of enemies.

calicojack · Jul 7, 2020

Surt said:
Light, but at the expense of reliability. Look at all those cuts in the upper receiver to let dirt and grime in.

How much battle will this "battle rifle" see? If you want a race gun, then just get a 5.56 with all the practicality removed from it and be done with it, dispense with any pretenses of being a weapon for the engagement and killing of enemies.

For that matter, none of these are proper modern battle rifles unless they are full auto. All of the ones mentioned here are really for recreational shooting of some sort, and/or collecting.

My previous responses to this thread were more tongue in cheek than anything.

shadow116 · Jul 7, 2020

calicojack said:
For that matter, none of these are proper modern battle rifles unless they are full auto.

Have to disagree completely.

I carried an M-14 for a couple of years. It was a Battle Rifle, and it was not full auto.

Most Battle Rifles firing full auto, while not totally worthless, are close to it.

TheOriginalMexicanBob · Jul 7, 2020

There are specific definitions for a Main Battle Rifle and an Assault Rifle. The MBR has to fire a full power cartridge...such as 7.62x51, .30-06, .303 Brit, 7.62x54 Rooskie, etc. It can be a bolt-action or semi-auto and could be select-fire but not necessarily so. Examples are the M14, M1 Garand, 1903 and 1903A3, British SMLE, Mosin-Nagant, FN-FAL, G3 and others.

An Assault Rifle has to have five specific attribute...
1) it must be a carbine,
2) it must fire an intermediate cartridge such as 5.56x45, 7.62x39,
3) it must be fed by a detachable box magazine,
4) it must fire by a locked breach,
5) it must be select-fire.

Absent any of the five attributes it is not an assault rifle. That is a distinction either lost on politicians and media people or deliberately disregarded by them. It's also lost on many pro-gun people as well.

The definitions have existed since WWII and are based on the German StG. 44 which was the first true assault rifle and set the design parameters. If the M1 Carbine had been select-fire from the beginning it would have been the first true assault rifle.

toppkatt · Jul 7, 2020

shadow116 said:
Have to disagree completely.

I carried an M-14 for a couple of years. It was a Battle Rifle, and it was not full auto.

Most Battle Rifles firing full auto, while not totally worthless, are close to it.

Actually the M-14 WAS capable of full auto (select fire probably better term to describe M14's), it's just the army recognized the uncontrollable nature of the beast without a lot of practice and they placed lockouts on most of them for practical use. Full auto had a selector switch with A on one side facing the shooter when in full auto mode and blank when in semi-auto mode. The lock was just a stub sticking out the receiver where the select fire switch should have been. It prevented the connector from actuating the secondary sear release.

At least that's my take on it from reading 'M14 Rifle History and Development', Fifth Edition, Volumes I-IV by Lee Emerson

calicojack · Jul 7, 2020

shadow116 said:
Most Battle Rifles firing full auto, while not totally worthless, are close to it.

Tell that to those on the receiving side.

Let me be more specific; a real assault rifle (not what politicians call an assault rifle) has full auto capability.

Combloc · Jul 7, 2020

IMO, "real" assault rifles are select fire and chamber an intermediate cartridge. A few days ago, I spent some time at the range with some examples of what I consider to be real assault rifles and they are anything but worthless in full auto mode:

calicojack · Jul 7, 2020

COMBLOC, all I can say is wow!!! :bowdown:

SKIP · Jul 7, 2020

You have displayed one hell of a collection over the years.

Combloc · Jul 7, 2020

Not all of those are mine, just one. I drove out to Missouri to see a friend and spend some time at the range. He had what I'd consider an "assault machine gun" too, an Ultimax 100 MK II:

Despite it only weighing about 10 lbs, it's dead level in full auto fire from the shoulder. Mr. Sullivan really did an amazing job on mitigating recoil with a double spring design. Some of the MG's other aspects.....not so much. Still, it's a rare bird that I was happy to get a chance to shoot.

BUT.....we're off topic. Sorry about that.

Buster Brown · Jul 7, 2020

I say either a Bren 2BR whenever its available or right now a Robinson XCR-M

shadow116 · Jul 7, 2020

calicojack said:
Tell that to those on the receiving side.

Let me be more specific; a real assault rifle (not what politicians call an assault rifle) has full auto capability.

Yes, but we were talking "Battle Rifle" not "Assault rifles".

shadow116 · Jul 7, 2020

toppkatt said:
Actually the M-14 WAS capable of full auto (select fire probably better term to describe M14's)

Correct, all "M-14" rifles are considered machine guns, as they were built with a selector switch.

My USMC issued "U.S. Military Springfield M-14" was Ser# 183260, and built in 1959. But the fun switch had been removed.

Recommendations for a Battle Rifle

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Stop Negassing me!!!!!

Pre-Banned

Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

American Sporting Rifle

Active Member

Banned

American Sporting Rifle

2nd Class Citizen

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

American Sporting Rifle

Stop Negassing me!!!!!

American Sporting Rifle

Ultimate Member

Stop Negassing me!!!!!

Active Member

2nd Class Citizen

2nd Class Citizen

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics