Rugged and self-loading, these rifles were designed for incapacitating and killing men in great numbers and at great distances. Owning battle rifles is no cause for shame. Sometimes, by their lethally aggressive behavior, men deserve to be shot. When they appear singlely and suddenly at close range, a pistol will usually solve your problem. When they appear at greater distances and/or in greater numbers, only a battle rifle will do. Remember, guns are only tools. Lethal emergencies vary, and so will the tools necessary to deal with them.
Since Phil is always telling me that I need a bigger/badder battle rifle to really “reach out and touch someone,” I have decided to take a crash course from the best of ’em. I know that I want .308, but I don’t want to get an FAL or HK-91 just because someone told me that I should. I want to buy what is best for me.
The above is from Boston on Guns & Courage: Proven Tools for Chronic Problems. Published at the same time, it is somewhat of an abridged version of Boston’s Gun Bible. It seems to have far less history and in depth analysis, but a bit more opinion. Guns & Courage is now impossible to find at a reasonable price, but Gun Bible is out with an up-to-date version including recent gun laws such as D.C. v. Heller.
If you don’t own Gun Bible, buy it today and start making your shopping list! Now!
M1 Garand is what you need. Everyone should have at least 1. And a stack of sealed tins of .30-06 in clips to go with it.
http://www.odcmp.com
I like the FAL – I take it with me for clean-up and high-intensity at Boomershoot, but I also clang steel with it at ~650 yards from time to time. It’s utterly reliable, and it also makes a good deer rifle with soft-points. I really like the adjustable gas system, so you can tune it to ammo or conditions. Not a match-grade tack-driver (at least mine aren’t), but a good DSA upper can be pretty good, if not the cheapest, option. An M1 Garand is a great rifle, but it’s not .308 (7.63 NATO). A Springfield Armory M14 is also a good choice. Budget could make a big difference. OTOH, if ammo compatibility / price isn’t a major concern, you could do worse than something like a 6.5mm Grendel.
What’s your priority order WRT ammo standardization, ammo power and variety, traditional form, range, price, and use (target, two-legged varmints, medium game hunting, impress your friends / enemies)? If NATO standardization and a $500 budget are mandatory, then options are limited. If things are a lot more flexible, then so are you options.
I want the Springfield M1A, I’m saving my nickles for one.
Don’t overlook the AR10. I have a PTR91 and originally helped answer a bunch of questions for Phil before he chose his. I recently switched to an AR10 for multigun matches and it’s superior in every way — except maybe for use as a club. Lighter, faster, less recoil, better ergonomics, better parts availability, better trigger, etc. So far it’s been even MORE reliabile (3-4 stoppages in the life of the PTR, all double feeds, none so far for the AR10) but I also don’t go slogging through the mud much.
I’ll second what Rolf said about the 6.5 Grendel.
If all you’re interested in doing is long range bench and prone shooting on the cheap, then a FAL, AR-10 or M-1A, or civilianized G-3 is the way to go. Relatively inexpensive 7.62 NATO surplus is hard to beat cost wise for a genuine battle rifle, and it certainly gets the job done out past 700 meters if you’re willing to buy quality rifle parts, a good optic, and put in the necessary practice.
If you’re doing three gun, or hunting, or patrolling, then they’re all beasts to carry.
At that point a relatively light weight 6.5 Grendel upper on an AR-15 lower shines. With quality parts and trigger, and custom loads, black hills, or Alexander Arms ammunition, you can really reach out a long, long way with the Grendel, even from a 18″ or 20″ barrel. I can’t recommend Wolf ammunition for the Grendel for anything but plinking.