What does /k/ think about pic related? Is there a better 308

>>32649343
>M1A
Don't buy Springfield M14s.

Buy LRB. Other rifles would be the FAL which is meh and the various G3 copies like the PTR GI which are also meh. Basically all this shit is meh and you should nut up and but a 17S.

>>32649343
primarily used by america's military so /k/ hates it

get one and claim its a russian version or someshit and /k/ will nut themselves trying to talk to you about it

>>32649367
what a stupid post

>>32649343
>for the money?
reminder that "for the money" is code-word for "I'm poor and shopping for things that i can't afford"

File: wm_3421905.jpg (105KB, 1566x1064px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 1566x1064px

>>32649343
>is there a better 308 for the money
Yes
>is there a better looking 308 for the money
No

Here's another good looking rifle

File: DSC_1730.jpg (225KB, 1024x681px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 1024x681px

The PTR-91 is currently the best .308 for the money.

File: 1484010003075.png (3KB, 280x272px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 280x272px

>>32649379
>good looking
>that

>>32649377
It's code to get SCARfags and their overpriced rifles to fuck off

>>32649359
What's wrong with Springfield? Honest question, not trying to start a shitfest.

>>32649386
>HK space gun
>not good looking

>>32649414
I would like to know this as well

>>32649414
Springfield was once contracting an airsoft manufacturing company in SK to produce parts for them. They've really been trash ever since they ran out of USGI M14 receivers.

>>32649414
>>32649430
I'm not too familiar with M1A's, but I believe that it has to do with how they make their receivers. The Springfield method of manufacturing is seen as inferior compared to real USGI M14's

File: 20170102_154215.jpg (955KB, 2560x1536px) Image search: [Google]

955KB, 2560x1536px

>>32649343
For the money a PTR-91 is going to be far cheaper and in some ways better. There are also some really good AR10 options for not much money either.


New Springfields are pretty expensive for what you get and there's no real way to manufacture them at a lower price. The SOCOM also has a goofy gas system. IMO the 18" Scout Squad is much better. Also M1As can be had for as little as 1-1.3k used and a lot of the earlier ones have actual USGI parts, so if you really want one (and honestly the ergonomics are fantastic) used is the way to go. SOCOM 16s also clutter used gun racks and armslist ads too, so look around before putting down money on a new one.

Pic related. I paid 1050$ for one and 1300$ for the other.

>>32649467
Damn, my gun shops never have anything but ars, aks, and tavors in the used racks.

>>32649414
Their receivers are trash investment cast. They make nothing to milspec so using real m14 parts require fitting.


And they're using Springfield's name to sell rheir garbage, going so far as to use the ordnance flaming bomb as their ™®© logo.

Basically deceptive advertising

>>32649435
SAI never used USGI receivers. They used surplus barrels, stocks, op rods, trigger groups, sights, flash hiders and gas pistons. Gradually those dried up. By S/N ~140000 or so they were down to GI barrels with commercial everything else. Today they are 100% commercial.

That's not the end of the world though. The new parts are reasonably well made, even if a lot of forged parts are cast to save cost. It's really the dimensions and tolerance problems that cause trouble. That's the issue that people had with Chinese and a few batches of SAI M1As. Also one common problem was weak extractors, but that's easy to fix.

>>32649541
>SAI never used USGI receivers.
Huh, you're right. I could have sworn they did before the GCA.

>>32649343
Dollar for dollar, almost any other .308 battle rifle is superior. Hell, if you want an M1/M14-like gun, build a BM59 (or even just buy one from James River Armory). The Italians actually got the damn design right, AND you get hipster cred.

PTR 91 is easily the best semi-auto .308 for the money, FALs are also good, as are M14s with USGI receivers. The new Springfield receivers are cast, making them structurally weak. A .308 AR using the SR-25 pattern is always a good option, and VEPR. 308's are cool if you like slavshit. SCAR 17 is the best .308 you're gonna find though, but for the money I'd go with a PTR 91

>>32649591
>The new Springfield receivers are cast, making them structurally weak
Stop playing engineer. The receivers aren't bad because they're cast, they're bad because they're out of spec shit with poor quality control.

File: yJC9OfK.jpg (793KB, 2419x1814px) Image search: [Google]

793KB, 2419x1814px

>>32649343
>Better 308 for your money
You rang?

Also the PTR and FAL, but I don't own either of those yet.

>>32649643
They change their source of receiver castings and small parts every few years too, then they have to work out the bugs with each vendor.

The non critical outside dimensions of the receiver are all slightly increased to make up for the difference in processes.

>>32649343
Norinco M305, basically a chink semi m14

>>32649541
>with Chinese
Norinco M14 clones are QUALITY.

>>32649414
The internet hates M1As and is convinced that you must spend $5,000 on a forged receiver. Nevermind the Norinco M1As are forged but crack all the time. It has to be made using the same (even then outdated) manufacturing process that M14s did before you can be cool.

>>32649716
This, Canadians are always bitching about canted FSB's, canted gas blocks, mistimed barrels, offset rear sights and out of spec parts slapped on with random small part breakages on norc m305's.

>>32649795
Norinco cracks ALL THE TIME? How about u stop making shit up?

>>32649823
They do tho, Chinese can't into hammer forging

>>32649882
That's funny considering all the Type 56 rifles out there with hammer forged barrels.

>>32649681
>putting the chamber of a .308 that close to your face
You're literally one malfunction away from having a supervillain face.

>>32649795
>M1As
When are you people going to learn that M1A is a Springfield trademark?

A lot of people are missing a huge point here but if you want a superior design in a 308 look at something that has a pistol grip, thumb operated safety, and push button mag release and drop free mags. The M14 has none of these and to be honest the only thing it has going for itself is its nostalgic value.
If you're truly interested in getting a fighting rifle then look into 308 ARs or a SCAR 17. You can get cheaper AR10s for less than a SAI m14.

>>32649948
there's even more cases of Chinese M14 barrel failures than there are receiver failures
>>32649959
sue me for infringement, fgt

>>32649823
They are known for forging the receiver blanks but getting the process wrong and ending up with it being too brittle. Also forged receivers are good, but dimensions and fitment matter a lot more. For instance Federal Ordnance was notorious for a few KBs but under analysis there was never a documented case of their cast receivers stretching to the point of cracking but rather out of spec bolt/barrel headspace allowing for excessive pressure spikes. One case was actually a competition stainless barrel that burst on an SAI receiver, the receiver had nothing to do with the failure and was well within spec but it caused widespread scuzzlebutt regardless.

Note SAI receivers are and always have been cast. There are hundreds of thousands in circulation with very few known issues. Ruger also investment casts their revolver frames which are astoundingly strong. Mini-14s are cast too. The process is definitely capable of making a quality product if QC is up to the task.

>>32649952
Because 308s blow up all the time right?

>>32649343
4MOA from factory, which is really shit for the money.

Exposed operating mechanics.

An AR10 would be much, much better for potentially less money.

>>32649379
>>32649386
>>32649428

That gun is sexy as fuck

>that classic hk safety
>german quality

gun porn right there

expensive gun and mags expensive as hell too

>>32649815
Yeah, this is true. When I got mine, found that the barrel was over-indexed. However, I paid only $450, and the reciever's decent quality. I can have it squared away and brought up to spec for $400. So if you look at it, only $850 for a decent m14 copy with a forged reciever.

>>32649965
I think a lot of that is preference. I like the Garand safety since it can be disengaged quickly from inside the trigger guard right before firing.
Rifle stocks vs. Pistol grips are debatable. I prefer the former. There are pistol grip stocks available for the M14 family as well.
As for drop free mags they sort of are. They rock in like an AK and nobody seems to complain about those. I've even done mag changes where I've bumped one mag out using another.
I agree there are more modern rifles available cheaper, but a reasonably made M14 is a perfectly viable rifle for range, hunting and defensive use, including SHTF.

>>32649952
No, I'm really not. Number 1, I'm ugly as fuck anyways. Number 2, there's about 3mm of solid fucking steel between the chamber and my face.

>>32649379
you fuckers never had one new, thats why you gush over it. you just dont know how bad it is.

its a hunk of shit.

File: 1391588664318.png (153KB, 500x566px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 500x566px

I love the fuck out of my norinco but for a springfield price I would probably get a PTR or something.

I really want a PTR

>>32649414
You get what you pay for.

There's a reason most battle rifles are around $2000.

I have a socom 16. Its a pretty good rifle. As long as you dont feed it junk ammo and use decent mags it feeds very well with very few FTEs.
That being said with the power and accuracy of a 308 it is kinda wasted on a 16 inch barrel. I bought mine when it first came out before AR-10s were very popular. I would rather have one of them now.
I Think the only spot it really shines would be in vehicle use. Its a fairly short rifle for a 308 and handles well in small spaces besides it being loud as fuck for a 308. Its recoil is very controllable and has no issue when you want to dump the mag. When i was like 20 ( bought the rifle at 18, my first self bought firearm) My buddies and i were trying to cut a tree in 1/2 using our funs and i dumped about 140 rounds in like 5 mins and it didnt have any problems.
So yeah its a fun and good rifle but there are better options. If you love the look of it and are not trying to get a sub moa rifle then go for it.

>>32649343
a reasonably priced ar10 would be "better"

M1As are pretty nice. /k/ is just rail-cist against them. fals are inaccurate and g3s don't have a last-round bolt hold. FNARs are cool but they're built as more of a hunting arm and are hard to disassemble and clean.